The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/18/2006 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION TuesdaY. July 18, 2006, 6:30 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. 6:30 - Presentation - Tree Ordinance Amendment Update 5. Approval of Minutes a. July 6, 2006 6. Public Hearings 7:00 Carpet Court (1685 Arcade Street (at Larpenteur Avenue)) Zoning Map Change - R-1 (single dwellings) to BC (business commercial) Building setback variance Public Vacation 7. New Business None 8. Unfinished Business None 9. Visitor Presentations 10. Commission Presentations July 10 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer July 24 Council Meeting: Mr. Grover August 14 Council Meeting: Mr. Yarwood 11. Staff Presentations Annual Tour Update (July 31, 2006) 12. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA THURSDAY, JULY 6, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai Commissioner Mary Dierich Chairperson Lorraine Fischer Commissioner Michael Grover Commissioner Harland Hess Commissioner Jim Kaczrowski Commissioner Gary Pearson Commissioner Dale Trippler Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood Staff Present: Present Absent Present Present Present Present Present Present Absent Ken Roberts, Planner Lisa Kroll, Recording Secretary III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mr. Roberts said the applicant for the CarMax/Mogren Addition at Highway 61 and Beam Avenue has withdrawn their request from the city approval for a few weeks. Staff wanted the planning commission to be aware that it's at their discretion to remove this item from the agenda or they can have an open discussion and pass any concerns they have onto staff to bring back to the applicant. The planning commission decided to discuss this proposal so staff can bring the planning commission's concerns and comments back to the applicant. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda. Commissioner Grover seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Kacrzrowski, Pearson, Trippler Approval of the planning commission minutes for June 19, 2006. Commissioner Trippler had corrections on pages 4, 13, and 17. On page 4, fifth paragraph, reword the paragraph to read: Ms. Hagstrom said that may be. She wanted to pass along that unfortunately the pastor; associate pastor and the chair of the board were out of town this evening. There was supposed to be a letter to the city from the church and she wasn't sure if that had been sent or not. She said the staff members at the church are in favor of this plan. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-06-06 -2- She said someone from the church will bring the letter in question to the July 10, 2006, city council meeting and hopefully a representative from the pastoral staff can be present. On page 13, item c. 5-8 Club discussion, second paragraph, first line, change the word He to it...On page 17, sixth paragraph, change the word tRe-to thev. Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the planning commission minutes for June 19, 2006, as amended. Commissioner Grover seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler V. PUBLIC HEARING CarMaxlMogren Addition (Highway 61 and Beam Ayenue) Mr. Roberts said staff would not be giving a formal presentation about this request since the applicant has requested the city delay taking action on the proposal. Mr. Roberts noted that staff would do the presentation for the meeting in 2 weeks but staff can take comments and concerns from the commission and pass those onto the developer and the developer can possibly make those changes or get answers for the next planning commission meeting. Commissioner Hess asked if the developer would be amending the specs and plans before the next meeting? He is concerned about the comments he read regarding the entrance to the property near Highway 61 and Beam Avenue and those concerns. Mr. Roberts said staff had comments regarding the architectural and landscaping plans so staff believed the applicant would have revised plans. Staff would make sure the revised plans are sent to the planning commission before their next meeting. Commissioner Trippler had comments regarding Tom Ekstrand's recommended approval of the 9 foot wide by 17 foot long parking spaces shown in the staff report. He said his neighbor has several large vehicles and he was concerned how a large vehicle would fit in and drive out of a 9 foot wide by 17 foot long parking space. Therefore, he measured the length and width of his neighbors' vehicles and found that a GMC Denali SUV is 7 feet wide by 18 feet long, a Lincoln Navigator measures 7 feet wide by 17 feet long and a Ford F150 truck is 7 feet wide by 19 feet long. He determined if the city allows 9 foot wide parking spaces people with large vehicles such as these will have difficulty driving in and out of the 9 foot wide parking spaces. It's also difficult for people getting in and out of the car to keep the car door from hitting the vehicle next to them, especially putting groceries or packages into the vehicle. Mr. Roberts asked if Commissioner Trippler was concerned about the width of the customer parking, inventory parking or employee parking spaces? Commissioner Trippler said he is only concerned about the size of the customer parking spaces. The city is not only altering the "width" of the parking space but now staff is altering the "length" of the parking space and this concerns him. Recently he was driving with someone with a full size truck with the extended cab and the driver had such a difficult time getting out of the parking space that it took 6 times of going back and forth to get out of the parking space because it was so tight. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-06-06 -3- Commissioner Trippler said it wasn't tight when they pulled into the space but when they came back to the truck to leave it was almost impossible to drive out of because of how others parked their vehicles next to them. Chairperson Fischer asked ifthe parking space was one that had been grandfathered in or was it a newer parking space? Commissioner Trippler said this a new parking space at a store near the mall. Mr. Roberts said he would pass this information on to the applicant. Commissioner Trippler said the southwest corner of the site is within the Kohlrnan Lake Shoreland Area. According to the staff report this means the applicant cannot develop more than 60 percent of the site with impervious paving. Forty percent must be pervious and be able to absorb rain water. He asked if the shoreland ordinance meant any property within the shoreland ordinance or did it only apply to the portion of the property within the shoreland ordinance? Mr. Roberts said that would only pertain to the property "in" the shoreland ordinance. Commissioner Trippler said he read that staff, MnDOT, and a Ramsey County Traffic Engineer did not approve of the westerly curb cut along Beam Avenue and that it would be too close to the intersection and would conflict with traffic movement near the intersection of Beam Avenue and Highway 61. He asked if staff was in agreement that the other exit/entrance was okay to go in? Mr. Roberts showed the access point staff preferred and the exit/entrance staff, MnDOT and Ramsey County did not prefer. Commissioner Trippler said he uses that exit/entrance and feels it wouldn't be good if that exit/entrance point was eliminated. He wasn't sure why the applicant couldn't access their property off the city street. Mr. Roberts said the applicant can access the property there but staff assumes that wouldn't be sufficient to the applicant. Commissioner Trippler said he sees a problem with the middle exit/entrance if people are coming off of Highway 61 and want to turn left that will tie up traffic. Mr. Roberts said he would pass that information along to the applicant. Staff knows the traffic engineer is studying this area all the way up to County Road 0 and hopefully they are looking at that situation already. Commissioner Trippler said the fire truck route emanated from the first entrance on the plan and if that is not allowed now the applicant would need to redo the plan. Staff clearly recommends denial regarding looking at these future lots and he would agree with that denial. He asked ifthere has been any headway regarding the applicant dropping that request? Planning Commission Minutes of 07-06-06 -4- Mr. Roberts said that would be a question for Tom Ekstrand who wrote this report. It's nice to see what's conceptualized for the future but the city isn't comfortable approving anything more than the lot layout and that's it and the applicant will have to come to the city for the individual review for each separate area. Some of those developments won't be ready for three years or so. Commissioner Trippler said regarding the six foot tall screening wall described in the landscaping plan in the staff report, has Maplewood approved anything like this in the past? Mr. Roberts said no. There have been screening fences approved in the past and fences up to 10 feet tall approved but there haven't been any six foot tall block walls approved in the past. He assumes that the applicant is thinking long term that a block wall would last longer and dealing with a fence that may get damaged would require fencing be replaced. CarMax apparently will take in any vehicle to sell and the thought may be that the block wall would help screen the less desirable vehicles from view. Commissioner Trippler said in his opinion that sets a bad precedence and he would not support the six foot tall block wall for this development. Commissioner Hess asked if there would be any pedestrian sidewalks along Beam Avenue? That would be a nice feature to have for pedestrians to access the mall area. He said he personally sees pedestrians walking along Beam Avenue and for safety reasons it may be nice to have a sidewalk connection. Mr. Roberts said he spoke briefly to the city engineering staff and there is an engineering feasibility study being done for this public street and that study will soon be going to the city council along with any other public improvements for this area. Staff suggested that a trail on the north side of Beam Avenue from Highway 61 to the Ramsey County trail would be nice to include. On the west side of Highway 61, by the Maplewood Toyota storage lot, there is a concrete sidewalk and it would be nice to continue the sidewalk. Staff is hoping that a sidewalk or trail included in the engineering feasibility study. Commissioner Hess said he has heard residents complaining that this area is not very resident friendly so it would be nice to continue the sidewalk all the way to the mall. He was concerned about the screening of the roof-top mechanical units and how that could be seen from Highway 61. He read on page 12 of the conditions in number 18. that all roof-top mechanical equipment shall be painted to match the building. He asked if that was a common practice because he would prefer to see a screening fence around the mechanical equipment rather than just having it painted to match the building. Mr. Roberts said the code states you only have to screen the roof-top units that are visible from residential properties otherwise the units can be painted to match the upper portion of the building. Staff can check into that further. Chairperson Fischer asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak regarding this item? Nobody in the audience came forward. The public hearing was closed. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-06-06 -5- Commissioner Pearson moved to table the CarMax/Mogren Addition at Highway 61 and Beam Avenue until the next planning commission meeting. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes - Desai, Fischer, Grover, Hess, Kaczrowski, Pearson, Trippler The motion to table passed. Staff will take the comments made by the planning commission and pass them along to the applicant in preparation for the next planning comrnission meeting. VI. NEW BUSINESS None. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Roles and Responsibilities of PC and CDRB - Linda Olson (Chairperson for CDRB) Mr. Roberts said the planning commission and community design review board recently asked staff to review the duties and responsibilities of the PC and the CDRB. Specifically, it was pointed out that there should be clarification as to which group should be reviewing which parts of development requests and providing comments on a variety of site-related development improvements. On June 27, 2006, the CDRB reviewed and discussed this subject. They indicated that they wanted to do an in-depth review of the city's parking ordinance with the help and comments of the planning commission. They also agreed with staff that there sometimes is overlap in responsibilities and that is necessary and probably could be a good thing. Finally, they requested to have their chairperson, Linda Olson, attend a planning commission meeting to discuss this topic with the commission. Linda Olson is here to discuss the overlapping of duties. Mr. Roberts invited Linda Olson to come forward and speak to the planning commission. Linda Olson, Chairperson for the Community Design Review Board, addressed the commission. Staff had recommended the CDRB look at parking stall width and size because some ofthe same issues have been coming up at the PC and CDRB meetings it was thought it may be a good idea to discuss review items that overlap. It sounds like it's agreeable with the CDRB and the PC that items are being discussed more than once and that it's better to have both groups give their opinions and comments to ensure that nothing gets missed along the way. Generally the PC receives and reviews the plans first and then the CDRB reviews it the following week. It's rare that the CDRB reviews a proposal before it goes to the PC. It's nice to know what the concerns of the planning comrnission were and staff usually informs the board of the planning commissions' concerns via the staff report or when introducing the item during the board meeting. Mr. Roberts said both the CDRB and PC minutes are on the website sorted by date and can be downloaded by anyone that would like to know what was reviewed and the comments said. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-06-06 -6- Commissioner Trippler commented that many times when he serves as the PC representative at the city council meeting that is when he hears the concerns that the Community Design Review Board had when the CDRB representative speaks. Board member Olson said she would agree with the comments made by Commissioner Trippler regarding the parking space size and the difficulty cars have when they are parked too closely or the difficulty drivers have pulling in and out of the parking stalls especially because of the large size of vehicles. Even with the high cost of gas these days, people require larger vehicles which require larger parking spaces. The board would strongly recommend that developers use more pervious paver systems for parking. Commissioner Trippler thanked Linda Olson for coming and speaking. He wondered if the PC and the CDRB were spending time reviewing issues that one or the other group should not be spending time on? He knows the board reviews things like lighting, landscaping, screening, and parking. The planning commission looks at how those things affect the surrounding area and the neighborhood and he asked if the CDRB was looking at these things for the same reasons. Board member Olson said she is here to talk about parking and how the CDRB and PC should approach review of these issues. The CDRB looks at screening, lighting, landscaping, signage, rainwater gardens, drainage, and grading. Most of these items are also areas of review for the PC. The CDRB is a group of volunteers with a wide range of backgrounds such as an architect, an environmental consultant, a city planner, and she herself has a civil background. This experience helps with reviewing proposals and brings a different aspect to the table so to speak. With the experience of both the planning corn mission hopefully things don't get missed during the review process but it is better to have as many different sets of eyes reviewing the proposals as possible. The CDRB reviews the lighting on the site, the style, the height, the number of lights, and the impact the light would have on the neighboring area and this is probably something the planning commission does not need to review. The CDRB prefers the dark sky at night policy. The CDRB looks at roof-top screening on a consistent basis. The board reviews grading and drainage but it can't hurt to have both the PC and CDRB reviewing things. Commissioner Pearson said the PC discusses noise concerns from mechanical units and the location of the units which is really the scope of the CDRB but they still discuss it. The PC also discusses the location of trash dumpsters and the screening of the dumpsters. He feels as long as the CDRB is okay with it the PC and CDRB reviewing the same items we should continue to look at the items rather than taking a chance of missing it during the review process. Board member Olson agreed. Many times projects are on a tight time schedule and things can get missed. She said many times one of the board members sees something that the other board members didn't see or think of and people wonder did they miss seeing that. The over coverage of the review process is a benefit to the city having the different groups offering a system of checks and balances especially because each group looks at proposals from a slightly different angle. When she reviews proposals she looks at them as a Maplewood resident and as someone who would be walking down the street and how the development would irnpact the neighborhood. Commissioner Pearson said lately he has noticed attention to detail in things like the garbage receptacle at the drive thru at Caribou Coffee on White Bear Avenue. Little details like that get missed and those are the small things that make a difference for a development and help keep the site maintained. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-06-06 -7- Board member Olson said the CDRB didn't review that particular detail for Caribou Coffee and the board cannot take the credit for that. Mr. Roberts said in the next few weeks there will be discussion regarding ordinance amendments for the tree ordinance and the wetland ordinance and he asked if both the CDRB and the PC wanted to be included in the review and discussion of the ordinance amendments coming up? Board member Olson said she knows the CDRB will want to be included in the review process of those ordinances and environmental concerns. The planning commission agreed that they too wanted to be included in on the discussion and review of the proposed code amendments. Commissioner Trippler said as a member of the Environmental Committee they have been working on those ordinances internally and the tree ordinance revisions have gone to the city attorney to check for any legal issues there may be. When that information has been returned from the city attorney's office and the revisions have been made the next step is to give a presentation to the other commissions, boards and committees for their input before the revisions to the ordinances are brought to the city council. Board member Olson said she appreciated the opportunity to have an open dialogue with the planning commission. She would appreciate having a representative from the PC come and speak to the CDRB as well. Chairperson Fischer recommended CommissionerTrippler be the speaker because of his serving on the Environmental Committee and the upcoming ordinance amendments that will be coming in the near future. Commissioner Trippler said the Environmental Committee will be meeting again Tuesday, July 18,2006, and hopefully there will be information back from the city attorney before that time. Board member Olson thanked the planning commission for allowing her to speak tonight and for the good work the planning commission does and their time serving on the commission. The planning commission thanked board member Olson for her time and service on the CDRB. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Mr. Kaczrowski was the planning commission representative at the June 26, 2006, city council meeting. The city council discussed the Eldridge Fields Right-of-Way vacation and preliminary plat (west of Prosperity Avenue) for five single-farnily homes which was passed by the city council 5-0. Planning Commission Minutes of 07-06-06 -8- The city council also discussed the CUP for the Pioneer Press building at 1616 Gervais Avenue regarding the noise concerns. b. Ms. Fischer will be the planning commission representative at the July 10, 2006, city council meeting. The city council will be discussing Liberty Classical Academy, 2696 Hazelwood Street for the CUP Revision, Legacy Village Townhomes, County Road D and Kennard Street for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, PUD Revision, and Preliminary Plat, the 5-8 Club Expansion at 2289 Minnehaha Avenue, for the Comprehensive Plan Arnendment, Zoning Map Change and the CUP revision, and the continuation of the Carver Crossing EAW discussion. c. Mr. Grover will be the planning commission representative at the July 24, 2006, city council meeting. d. Mr. Yarwood will be the planning commission representative at the August 14, 2006, city council meeting. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS Because there is a special city council meeting on Monday, July 17, 2006, the planning commission meeting needs to be rescheduled. After checking with the commission it appeared Tuesdav. July 18. 2006, worked the best. That is same evening the Environmental Committee meets. If the planning commission meeting could start at 6:30 p.m. there could be a presentation given regarding the tree ordinance and other ordinance amendments. Then the planning commission could begin their meeting at the regular start time of 7:00 p.m. (a few of the planning commission members will have difficulty making it here by 6:30 p.m. but because the committee is looking for input early in order to make changes, the presentation would be given in a work shop style format to those commission members who can make it at 6:30 p.rn.) Annual Tour Update for Monday, July 31, 2006 Mr. Roberts said the tour will now be going to south Maplewood. If there are any other areas of Maplewood that are not already on the list of places to visit, please let staff know as soon as possible so they can compile the tour list in a timely manner. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:14 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Draft Tree Ordinance April 26, 2004 INTRODUCTION The city council created the environmental committee in the summer of 2004. The environmental committee was created to examine and deal with environmental issues within the city. An area of particular concern with the city council was the examination of the city's existing environmental ordinances by the environmental committee. BACKGROUND To date the environmental committee has dealt with several environmental issues including the creation of a new recycling ordinance which the city council adopted last winter, creation of educational materials and hosting of seminars on low impact lawn care, native vegetation, wetland buffers, and storm water. The environmental committee is currently reviewing the city's environmental protection and critical area ordinance (Attachment 1). This ordinance deals with wetlands and trees. The environmental committee decided to create two separate ordinances for wetlands and trees, rather than lump both items into one ordinance. Two task forces were created from the environmental committee members. The first task force has been dealing with the tree component of the ordinance and includes the city forester, Mandy Musielewicz. The second task force has been dealing with the wetland component and includes two employees of the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District. On May 22, 2006, the environmental committee presented the work to date on these issues to the city council during a workshop. The city council seemed pleased with the environmental committee's progress and looked forward to reviewing the final draft ordinances. The wetland task force is still in the process of creating a draft wetland ordinance. This task force has been working with the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District in reviewing the watershed district's new wetland classification system and rules. The watershed district's new wetland classification system, and possibly the new rules, will have an impact on the wetland task force's final draft ordinance. On July 10, 2006, the tree task force finalized a draft tree ordinance (Attachment 2). This ordinance has been reviewed by the city attorney's office (Attachment 3), with oversight from the environmental committee. DISCUSSION Comparison of Other Tree Ordinances One of the first areas of review was to compare the city's existing tree ordinance with other similar city's ordinances. The tree task force compared Maplewood's ordinance with six other cities including Blaine, Eagan, Oakdale, St. Paul, White Bear Lake, and Woodbury (Attachment 4). The comparison found that Maplewood's tree ordinance is far less restrictive than these six cities, particularly in regard to the number of replacement trees required. Major Changes Proposed Mandy Musielewicz, city forester, created the following list of major changes proposed with the draft tree ordinance: 1. Tree Protection: Current ordinance limits the amount of information on tree protection measures. Proposed ordinance gives more detail on protection measures and applicability. 2. Responsible City Staff: Current ordinance is vague as to responsible city staff. Proposed ordinance identifies responsible city staff principally as environmental manager and city forester. 3. Significant Tree Definition: Current ordinance defines trees required to be replaced as large trees. A large tree is a tree with an 8-inch diameter excluding box elder, cottonwood, poplar and any other undesirable tree. Proposed ordinance defines trees required to be replaced as significant trees. A significant tree is a hardwood tree with a 6-inch diameter, softwood tree with a 12-inch diameter, conifer tree with an 8-inch diameter, and further defines a landmark/specimen tree as any tree with a diameter over 28 inches. No tree species is excluded from tree replacement. 4. Applicability: Current ordinance has broad application to any person or use that would alter a significant natural feature. Proposed ordinance better defines application to any individual, business, or entity that engages in a building or development activity which requires issuance of a grading permit or new building permit. This includes all sites of new development that contain significant trees or woodlots. Applications for minor 2 home additions, general home improvements, construction of accessory buildings (i.e. garage, shed) are excluded from the requirements of the proposed tree ordinance. 5. Project Inclusion and Notification: Current ordinance requires public and semipublic projects such as street, utilities and parks to be bound by the ordinance, except if waived by council. In addition, all property owners within 350 feet of the affected tree removal site (for large developments or woodlot alterations) are required to be notified prior to tree removal. Proposed ordinance requires public and semipublic projects to be bound by ordinance, except when reviewed and approved by the environmental committee and accepted by the city council. In addition, all property owners within 500 feet of the affected tree removal site (for large developments or woodlot alterations) to be notified. 6. Woodlot Definition: Current ordinance defines a woodlot as at least one-half acre, of which 25 percent of the area includes large trees. Proposed ordinance defines a woodlot as a treed area on a vacant lot which includes a significant tree(s). 7. Noncompliance: Current ordinance does not contain penalty for non-compliance. Proposed ordinance penalizes non-compliance. Failure to submit an approved woodlot alteration permit before land clearing will result in a two-year moratorium for attainment of grading permit or building permit in addition to total tree replacement for the parcel. 8. Number of Replacement Trees: Current ordinance requires tree replacement of one tree replaced for one tree removed, but in no case does an applicant have to replace more than ten trees per acre. Proposed ordinance requires one tree replaced per one tree lost, up to 20 percent of significant tree diameter inches lost. Once the threshold of 20 percent of total diameter inches is reached, additional tree replacement is required based on a tree replacement formula of total diameter inches on the site and number of diameter inches lost. The formula increases the amount of inches replaced based on additional tree inches removed. There is no maximum replacement threshold. 3 9. Size of Replacement Trees: Current ordinance requires replacement trees to be at least 2.5 caliper inches for deciduous trees and 8 feet high for coniferous trees. Proposed ordinance requires tree replacement trees to be at least 2.5 caliper inches for deciduous and 6 feet high for coniferous trees. 10. Tree Species and Guarantee: Current ordinance recommends tree species diversity for replacement and a one year planting guarantee. Proposed ordinance requires tree species diversity if more than ten trees are planted and a two year planting guarantee. 11. Surety for Replacement Trees: Current ordinance does not require letter of credit or cash escrow for tree replacement and does not allow for payment to city in lieu of tree replacement. Proposed ordinance requires a 150 percent letter of credit or cash escrow for tree replacement. In addition, tree replacement on site considered first option, but payment to city in lieu of tree replacement allowed if there is not enough space on site for tree replacement. Tree Replacement Comparisons By far the biggest change to the city's current tree ordinance would be the number of replacement trees. The current ordinance allows large trees to be removed without consideration of their overall size. The proposed ordinance requires that the overall size of all significant trees be calculated in the tree replacement formula. Following is a comparison of the existing ordinances tree replacement requirement to the draft ordinance. These comparisons are based on two recent developments proposed in the city including Comforts of Home (42 unit assisted living facility on the southeast corner of Highway 36 and Hazelwood Street) and Maplewood Imports (four new automobile dealers located at 2450 Maplewood Drive). The comparison is not exact as the tree plans submitted for these projects were based on the city's current definition of a large tree. However, the comparison will give an approximate real-life example of the two codes. Comforts of Home: There were 1,048 diameter inches of trees on the site (70 "large" trees). There were 409 diameter inches of trees removed from the site (26 "large" trees removed). Current ordinance required 26 replacement trees (2.5 inches in diameter for deciduous trees and 8 feet high for coniferous trees). Proposed ordinance would require 116 diameter inches of replacement trees (46 replacement trees based on 2.5-inch diameter trees). 4 Maplewood Imports: There were 2,921 diameter inches of trees on the site (unknown number of "large" trees). There were 1,512 diameter inches of trees removed from the site (135 "large" trees removed). Current ordinance required 135 replacement trees (2.5 inches in diameter for deciduous trees and 8 feet high for coniferous trees). Proposed ordinance would require 720 diameter inches of replacement trees (288 replacement trees based on 2.5-inch diameter trees). Proposed Schedule 1. The tree task force will present the draft tree ordinance to the planning commission and community design review board for comment. These comments will be reviewed by the environmental committee for possible changes to the draft ordinances. 2. The environmental committee will conduct public education on the draft ordinance. The public will be introduced to the draft ordinance through articles, mailings, and possibly an open house. Comments received by the public will be reviewed by the environmental committee for possible changes to the draft ordinances. 3. The environmental committee will begin the public hearing process for the draft ordinance and hold a public hearing with the planning commission, review and recommendation by the community design review board, and final review and approval by the city council. Staff estimates that this process could be accomplished by mid October at a minimum. RECOMMENDATION Review the draft tree ordinance (Attachment 2) and give comment and feedback on the ordinance for review by the environmental committee. Plcom-devlordlenvironmental protectionltreesI7-18-06 pc memorandum Attachments: 1. Maplewood's Current Environmental Protection and Critical Area Ordinance 2. July 10, 2006, Draft Tree Ordinance 3. City Attorney's Review of Draft Tree Ordinance 4. Comparison of Other Tree Ordinances 5 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 171 IfirstJpubdocs/mcc/3/1 1217_ full ~~ 8~E~003CJtb Attachment 1 BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS (2) A surety bond shall be provided in the currently required amount, ring to the city, approved by the city council. The bond shall be conditioned that t city will be saved harmless from any loss, damage, cost or expense by reason any work performed under this Code or by reason of improper or inadequate p ormance or compliance 'th the tJ'rms of this Code by the holder of the license, s agent or employees. (3) Ace ificate of insurance or copies of public liability d property damage insurance policie as provided for in section 12-207, shall be rovided. (b) The city co cil may revoke any license issued licensee shall violate ny city ordinance. (c) No licensee shall a: ow his name to be used y any other person for the purpose of doing any sewer installation wor within the city. (Code 1982, * 9-170) (a) No person shall be engaged of installing, erecting, constructing or removing signs within the city wit t t obtaining a license. Such license shall be issued by the city manager upon applicati therefor. uch license shall be for one calendar year, and the annual fee for such license sh be establish by resolution of the city council. A separate fee schedule shall be establish for temporary si s. (b) Every person lice ed under subsection (a) this section and regnlarly engaged in the vertising and business sign in the city shall, before permits are granted, file with t city clerk a continuing bond in th currently required amount executed by the applicant d a surety company approved by the C1 attorney and conditioned for the faithful observ ce of the requirements of this Code, which sR indemnifY and save harmless the city fro any and all damages, costs or expenses which t city may incur or suffer by reason of anting such permit. A liability insurance policy issue y an insurance company authori d to do business in this state, conforming to this section, sh be permitted in lieu of the b d. Any person lawfully maintaining sign structures regulated by apter 36, article III, at e time of its original enactment (July 14, 1977), shall comply with t . section. de 1982, * 9-171) Sees. 12-218-12-246. Reserved. ARTICLE VII. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND CRITICAL AREA DMSION 1. GENERALLY Sec. 12-247. Purpose. The purpose of this article is to protect significant natural features which: (1) Preserve the natural character of neighborhoods. CD12:29 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 172 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:10 2003 Ifirstlpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 _full ~ 12-247 MAPLEWOOD CODE (2) Protect the health and safety of residents. (3) Protect water quality. (4) Prevent erosion or flooding. (5) Manage the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area in accordance with the Critical Areas Act of 1973; the Minnesota Policy Act of 1973; and the governor's critical area designation order, Executive Order 130, dated November 23, 1976. (Code 1982, ~ 9-186) Sec. 12-248. Applicability. (a) This article shall apply to any person or use that would alter a significant natural feature. (b) Public and semipublic projects, such as streets, utilities and parks, whether built by a public agency or private developer, shall be subject to this article, except that the city council may waive these requirements where there would be a greater public need for the project than to meet the requirements of this article. A public hearing shall be held before declaring such a waiver. The property owners within 350 feet of the site shall be notified at least ten days before the hearing. (Code 1982, ~ 9-187) Sec. 12-249. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Bluff/ine means a line delineating a top of a slope with direct drainage to a protected water, connecting the points at which the slope becomes less than 18 percent. More than one blufiline may be encountered proceeding landward from a protected water. Critical area means the Mississippi River Corridor Area bounded by Carver Avenue, 1-494 and the city limits. Direct drainage means drainage into a protected water without an intervening pond or wetland. ~iP line means the farthest distance around and away from the trunk of a tree that rain ~ dew will fall directly to the ground from the leaves or branches of that tree. Erosion means the general process by which soils are removed by flowing surface or subsurface water or wind. Gross soil lass means the average annual total amount of soil material carried from one acre ofland by erosion. Large tree means any healthy tree that has a trunk diameter, four feet above the ground, of at least eight inches, other than a box elder, cottonwood, poplar, or any other undesirable tree, as determined by the director of community development. CD12:30 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 173 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 8 12:31:102003 Ifirstlpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 _full BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS ~ 12-249 Pipeline means an underground line of pipe including associated pumps, valves, control devices and other structures utilized for conveying liquids, gases, sewage or other finely divided solids from one point to another. Protected water, formerly referred to as IIpublic waters,'l means any water defined in Minn. Stats. ~ 105.37, subd. 14. Retaining wall means a structure utilized to hold a slope in a position in which it would not naturally remain. Sediment means suspended matter carried by water, sewage or other liquids. Significant natural feature means a significant water body, a large tree, a woodlot, a significant slope or a site of historical or archeological significance that has been recorded with the state. Signi[u:ant slope means a natural slope of25 percent or more grade over an area at least 200 feet in length (top to bottom) and 500 feet in width (side to side). Significant water body means a water body shown on the city drainage plan or a water body over one acre in area. Slope means the inclination of the natural surface ofthe land from the horizontal; commonly described as a ratio of the length to the height. Structure means any thing manufactured, constructed or erected which is normally attached to or positioned on land, including portable structures. Substation means any utility structure, other than lines, pipelines, poles or towers. Terrace means a relatively level area bordered on one or more sides by a retaining wall. Utility means electric, telephone, telegraph, cable television, water, sanitary or storm sewer, solid waste, gas or similar service operations. r Ve~etation means all plant growth, especially trees, shrubs, mosses or grasses. Water body means any lake, stream, pond, wetland or river. Wetland means an area of the city inundated or saturated by groundwater or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances does support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas (Army Corps of Engineers Regulation 33 CFR 328.3 1988). Where a person has removed or mostly changed the vegetation, one shall determine a wetland by the presence or evidence of hydric or organic soil and other documentation of the previous existence of wetland vegetation such as aerial photographs. GOOdlot means a treed area of at least one-half acre, of which at least 25 percent of the area includes large trees. (Code 1982, ~ 9-188) CD12:31 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 174 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:102003 Ifirstlpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 _full ~ 12-250 MAPLEWOOD CODE Sec. 12-250. Effect on density. The city may reduce the maximum allowed density on that part only of the development that has a significant natural feature, where such reduction would save all or part of a significant natural feature. However, regardless of the requirements in this article, the maximum allowed density shall not be reduced below 67 percent of the allowed density in the city's land use plan for multiple dwellings. The minimum lot size shall not be increased above 15,000 square feet for single dwellings. Any required density reduction or increase in lot size must save a significant natural feature. The city council may require the clustering of dwellings in the form of townhouses, quads, apartments or similar uses, where it is necessary to preserve significant natural features. (Code 1982, * 9-189) Sees. 12-251-12-276. Reserved. DMSION 2. ADMINISTRATION Sec. 12-277. Tree plan required. A tree plan shall be required with any city application which would result in the loss oflarge trees or all or part of a woodlot. This plan shall show the existing woodlot, identifY the sizes and species of any large trees and indicate which trees are to be removed. The applicant shall show on the tree plan and on the site the limits of proposed grading activity near a large tree or woodlot to be preserved. These grading limits shall not encroach upon the drip lines of the trees to be preserved in the woodlot. City staff may submit the plan to a tree expert for a recommendation. Any costs shall be paid by the developer. (Code 1982, ~ 9-190) Sec. 12-278. Woodlot alteration permit. (a) A woodlot alteration application shall be submitted to the director of community of development for any alteration of a woodlot that is not reviewed in another application. The applicant shall submit a tree plan and any other information needed to determine compliance with this article. Specific requirements shall be stated on an application form in the office of the director of community development. An application fee shall be established by the city council by resolution from time to time. (b) The director of community development may approve a woodlot alteration permit which complies with this article. The director's decision may be appealed to the city council in writing by any affected party within ten days of the director's written decision. (Code 1982, * 9-191) ~ec. 12.279. Conditions of approval. The city may reqnire conditions of approval to ensure compliance with this article. (Code 1982, * 9-192) CD12:32 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 175 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 8 12:31:10 2003 IfirstJpubdocs/mcc/3/ 11217_ full BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS ~ 12-308 Sees. 12.280-12-306. Reserved. DMS10N 3. APPROVAL STANDARDS Sec. 12-307. Scope. (a) Under this article all plans and the conduct of all grading, landscaping, structure placement, and street routing shall be consistent with the city's comprehensive plan, and for development in the Mississippi River Corridor Critical Area, the Maplewood Critical Area Plan. (b) The proposed development shall not lessen existing public access to and along a protected water. (c) The proposed development shall be designed, constructed and maintained to avoid causing: (1) Erosion. (2) Pollution, contamination or siltation of water bodies or storm sewers. (3) Flooding. (4) Groundwater contamination. (5) Alteration of significant natural features. (Jd) Development shall not substantially diminish the scientific, historical, educational, recreational or aesthetic value of unique natural areas, plants and animals, which are registered with the state as such, and shall not substantially alter their reproductive cycles. (e) Views of protected waters from buildings or public streets shall not be impaired by the placement of advertising signs. (f) Where feasible, all new stormwater detention ponds shall be designed and constructed to meet the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) design criteria of removing at least 60 percent of the phosphorous. The engineer or designer may use the Walker pondnet model or the Pitt pond model when designing stormwater ponds, as noted by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas manual. The applicant or applicant's engineer shall provide the city engineer with the necessary calculations to verify the pond design. (Code 1982, ~ 9-193; Ord. No. 811, ~ 1, 3-26-2001) Sec. 12-308. Slopes. (a) No development shall be permitted on existing slopes of 18 percent or greater which are in direct drainage to a protected water. (b) In areas not in direct drainage to a protected water, no development shall be allowed on existing slopes greater than 40 percent. CD12:33 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 176 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:10 2003 IfirstJpubdocs/mccl3/11217 _ full ~ 12-308 MAPLEWOOD CODE (c) No development, whether or not in direct drainage to a protected water, shall be permitted on land having an existing slope in excess of 12 percent, unless the applicant proves the following conditions are met: (1) Controls and protections exist uphill from the proposed development such that there is no danger of structures or streets being struck by falling rock, mud, sediment from erosion, uprooted trees or other materials. (2) The proposed development presents no danger of falling rock, mud, sediment from erosion, uprooted trees or other materials to structures downhill. (3) The view of a developed slope within the critical area from the Mississippi River and opposite river bank is consistent with the natural appearance of the undeveloped slope, consistent with any state-registered historic areas nearby, compatible with the view from historic areas, and compatible with surrounding architectural features. (4) The city engineer may require the developer to provide a soils engineer to certify the stability of potentially unstable slopes. (d) The basic character of natural slopes of25 percent or more in grade shall not be altered without approval from the city council. The council shall base its decision on the following: (1) The degree of alteration of the slope; and (2) The importance of the slope to the character of the area. (e) All new structures and roads shall be placed no closer than 40 feet from a bluffiine. Exceptions shall be as follows: (1) Public recreation facilities, scenic overlooks, public observation platforms or public trail systems. (2) The construction of aboveground pumping stations. (3) Other development, when the applicant can conclusively demonstrate that construc- tion or final development will not negatively impact slopes with a grade of 18 percent or greater. (4) All other structures, other than buildings and roadway surfaces, but including retaining walls, shall meet the following design requirements: a. Retaining walls or terrace contours in excess of four feet in height shall have a fence. b. Construction materials shall be subject to community design review board approval. <D The requirements of this section shall not apply in the following situations: (1) Where a slope has been substantially altered by prior excavation or filling. (2) Where a slope is less than 200 feet in length (top to bottom) or 500 feet in width (side to side). CD12:34 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: ]77 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:]02003 ifirstlpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 _full BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS ~ 12-310 (3) Where earth-sheltered homes are proposed. (Code 1982, ~ 9-194) Sec. 12-309. Erosion control and soils. (a) All erosion control, stormwater runoff, utility and similar structures shall be designed to be maintained and operated without requiring the crossing or operation of heavy mainte- nance vehicles and equipment, such as bulldozers, trucks and backhoes, on slopes in excess of eight percent. This requirement may be waived by the city council where there is no other alternative. (b) Construction shall not be allowed where there are soil problems, including but not limited to soil-bearing strength, shrink/swell potential or excessive frost movement, unless effective soil correction measures or building construction methods are approved by the building official. (c) Development shall be accomplished only in such a manner that on-site gross soilloss levels shall not exceed five tons per acre per year during construction, but only two tons per acre per year when the site is adjacent to a water body, watercourse or storm sewer inlet, and one-half ton per acre per year after construction activities are completed. (d) A development shall be located to minimize the removal of vegetation and alteration of the natural topography. (e) Erosion protection measures shall make maximum use of natural, in-place vegetation, rather than the placing of new vegetation on the site. (Code 1982, ~ 9-195) Sec. 12-310. Wetlands and streams. (a) Findings and purposes. The findings and purposes of this section are as follows: (1) Wetlands serve a variety of beneficial functions. Wetlands maintain water quality, reduce flooding and erosion, provide food and habitat for wildlife, provide open space and are an integral part of the city's environment. Wetlands are an important physical, educational, ecological, aesthetic, recreational and economic asset to the city. They are critical to the city's health, safety, and general welfare. Surrounding development may degrade, pollute, accelerate the aging of or eliminate wetlands. Regulating land use around wetlands is therefore in the public interest. (2) Streams are also significant elements of the city's hydrologic system. Streams flow into wetlands and lakes, provide food and habitat for wildlife, provide open space, and are an integral part of the city's environment. Like wetlands, streams are an important physical, educational, ecological, aesthetic, recreational and economic asset. Surround- ing development may degrade, pollute or damage streams and, in turn, degrade other surface waters downstream. Requiring buffers recognizes that the surrounding up- lands relate to the woodland and stream quality and function and, therefore, are in the public interest. CD12:35 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 178 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:10 2003 IfirstJpubdocs/mcc/3/ 1121 7_ full ~ 12-310 MAPLEWOOD CODE (3) Buffers are the lands that surround wetlands and streams. They are integral to maintaining the valuable functions many wetlands perform. Buffers reduce the inlpacts of surrounding land use on wetlands and streams by stabilizing soil to prevent erosion by stormwater; filtering suspended solids, nutrients and harmful substances; and moderating water level fluctuations during storms. Buffers also provide essential wildlife habitat. Finally, buffers reduce the adverse impacts of human activities on wetlands and streams. Requiring wetland buffers recognizes that the surrounding uplands relate to the wetland and stream's quality and function and, therefore, are in the public interest. (4) The purposes of this section are to: a. Preserve the beneficial functions of wetlands and streams by regulating the surrounding land use. b. Stabilize the soil around wetlands to prevent stormwater erosion. c. Filter suspended solids, nutrients and harmful substances from reaching wetlands, streams and public waters. d. Reduce human disturbances of wetlands and streams by visually separating wetlands from yards. e. Prevent flooding and the costs of reclaiming water quality. f. Protect beneficial plant and wildlife habitat. g. Educate the public, including appraisers, owners, potential buyers or developers, to the development limitations of wetlands, streams and associated buffers. (b) Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Alteration means any human action that adversely affects a buffer. Alterations include but are not limited to the following: grading, filling, dumping, dredging, draining, cutting, pruning, topping, clearing, relocating or removing vegetation, applying herbicides or pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance, discharging pollutants except stormwater, paving, construction, application of gravel or any other human activity that adversely affects the vegetation, hydrology, wildlife or wildlife habitat. Alteration does not include the following: (1) Walking, passive recreation, fishing or other similar activities. (2) Planting that enhances native vegetation. (3) The selective clearing or pruning of trees or vegetation that are dead, diseased, noxious weeds or hazards. Average buffer width means the average width of a buffer within a single development, lot or phase. Buffer means a stream or wetland buffer or protective zone. CD12:36 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 179 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:102003 IfirstJpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 _full BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS ~ 12-310 Clearing means the cutting or removal of vegetation. Enhancement means an action that increases the functions and values of a wetland, stream or wetland buffer. Mitigation means an action that reduces, rectifies, eliminates or compensates for the alteration of a buffer, wetland or stream. ~ative vegetation means tree, shrub, grass or other plant species that are indigenous to the Twin Cities metropolitan area that could have been expected to naturally occur on the site. Native vegetation does not include noxious weeds. Ordinary high water mark (OHWM) means a mark delineating the highest water level maintained for enough time to leave evidence upon the landscape. The ordinary high water mark is commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. Restoration means returning a wetland, stream or buffer to a condition that is similar to that before development of the surrounding area. Stream means those areas where surface waters produce a defined channel or bed. A defined channel or bed is land that clearly contains the constant passage of water under normal summer conditions. This definition does not include drainage swales or ditches that channel intermittent stormwater runoff. Stream buffer means land that is in direct drainage to a stream and within the boundary described by this article. A person shall measure all buffers from the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) as identified in the field. If a person cannot determine the OHWM, the stream buffer shall be from the top of the stream banI!:. Variance means a deviation from the standards of this section that are not specifically allowed. Vegetation means any organic plant life growing at, below or above the soil surface. Wetland buffer means land that is in direct drainage to a wetland within the boundary described by this section. All buffers shall be measured outward from the wetland edge. Wetland classes. The city defines the wetland classes used in this section as follows: (1) Class 1 wetlands means wetlands assigned the unique/outstanding rating in the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Wetlands Inventory, 1995. Class 1 wetlands are those with conditions and functions most susceptible to human impacts, are most unique, have the highest community resource significance and similar characteristics. (2) Class 2 wetlands means high value (definition based on Watershed wetlands inventory results). (3) Class 3 wetlands means wildlife habitat value. (4) Class 4 wetlands means moderate value impacts. CD12:37 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 180 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:10 2003 Ifirstlpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 _full ~ 12-310 MAPLEWOOD CODE (5) Class 5 wetlands means wetlands assigned the highly impacted rating in the Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Wetlands Inventory, 1995. Class 5 wetlands are those with conditions and functions most affected by human activities, with the least diverse vegetation communities, least community resource significance and similar characteristics. For the purposes of this section, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats ofthe United States, FWS/OBS-79/31 (Cowardin et aI, 1979) contains the descriptions and photographs of wetland classes and subclasses. Wetland easement means a designated area that includes the wetland or buffer where disturbance from mowing, cutting or similar activities is excluded. Wetland edge means the line delineating the outer edge of a wetland. One shall establish this line by using the Federal Manual for Identif'ying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands dated January 10, 1989, and jointly published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. The applicable watershed board must verifY this line. Wetland (unctions means the natural processes performed by wetlands, such as helping food chain production, providing wildlife habitat, maintaining the availability and quality of water such as purif'ying water, acting as a recharge and discharge area for groundwater aquifers and moderating surface water and stormwater flows and performing other functions, including but not limited to those set out in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations at 33 CFR 320.4(b)(2)(1988). Wetlands means those areas of the city inundated or saturated by groundwater or surface water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support and that under normal circumstances do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas (Army Corps of Engineers Regulation 33 CFR 328.3 1988). Where a person has removed or mostly changed the vegetation, one shall determine a wetland by the presence or evidence of hydric or organic soil and other documentation of the previous existence of wetland vegetation such as aerial photographs. (c) Applicability. This section shall apply as follows: (1) This section shall apply to any person or use that would alter a wetland, stream or wetland buffer after April 24, 1995. (2) When any provision of any ordinance conflicts with this section, the provision that provides more protection for buffers, wetlands or streams shall apply unless specifi- cally provided otherwise in this section. (3) Public and semipublic streets, utilities or trails, whether built by a public agency or private developer, shall be subject to this section. CD12:38 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 181 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 8 12:31:102003 Ifirstlpubdocs/mcc/3/11217 _full BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS ~ 12-310 (d) General exemptions. This section shall not apply to the following; (1) Structures, vegetation and maintenance activities and practices in existence on the effective date of the ordinance from which this section derives. A contractor or owner may remodel, reconstruct or replace affected structures if the new construction does not take up more buffer land than the structure used before the remodeling, reconstruction or replacement. (2) The construction or maintenance of public drainage facilities, sedimentation ponds or erosion control facilities. (3) The maintenance of public or semipublic facilities including streets, utilities and trails. (4) Where the city council waives these requirements for the construction of public and semipublic utilities or trails, whether built by a public agency or private developer. The city council may waive the requirements where there would be a greater public need for the project than to meet the requirement of this section. In waiving these requirements, the city council shall follow the standards in subsection (e) of this section. The city council shall hold a public hearing before declaring such a waiver. The city shall notify the property owners within 350 feet of the buffer at least ten days before the hearing. (5) Where this section would deny all reasonable use of a lot of record. In such case, the owner or contractor shall construct any building to maximize the setback from a buffer. Federal, state or watershed district rules and regulations shall apply. Alterations to a buffer shall be the minimum necessary to allow for the reasonable use of the property. Where feasible, the city may require the mitigation of any alteration of a buffer. (6) Where the watershed district has approved a wetland filling permit. The city shall require mitigation for any disturbed buffer land. (e) Standards for utility and trail exemptions. Standards for utility and trail exemptions are as follows: (1) The city may only allow the construction of utilities through buffers where there is no other practical alternative and the following requirements are met: a. Utility corridors shall not be allowed when a buffer is used by species listed as endangered or threatened by the federal or state government. b. Utility corridors, including any allowed maintenance roads, shall be as far from the wetland or stream as possible. c. Utility corridor construction and maintenance shall protect the wetland, stream or buffer and avoid large trees as much as possible. The city shall not allow the use of pesticides, herbicides or other hazardous or toxic substances in buffers, streams or wetlands. d. The owner or contractor shall replant utility corridors with appropriate native vegetation, except trees, at preconstruction densities or greater after construction ends. CD12:39 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 182 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 812:31:102003 /first/pubdocs/mcc/3/11217 _full ~ 12-310 MAPLEWOOD CODE e. Any additional corridor access for maintenance shall be provided as much as possible at specific points rather than by parallel roads. If parallel roads are necessary they shall be no greater than 15 feet wide. (2) The city may allow public or private trails in buffers, subject to the following guidelines: a. The trail shall not be of impervious materials. An elevated boardwalk shall not be considered an impervious surface. b. Buffers shall be expanded, where possible, equal to the width of the trail corridor. c. The owner or contractor shall replant all disturbed areas next to the trail after completing the trail. (:{) Variances. Procedures for granting variances from this section are as follows: (1) The city council may approve variances to the requirements in this section. Before the city council acts on a variance, the planning commission shall make a recommendation to the city council. The city council shall hold a public hearing before approving a variance. The city staff shall notify the property owners within 350 feet of the buffer at least ten days before the hearing. The city may require the applicant to mitigate any buffer alteration. (2) 'Ib approve a variance, the council must make the following findings: a. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. The term "undue hardship" as used in granting a variance means the owner of the property in question cannot put it to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls; the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner; and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone are Dot an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of this section. b. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this section. (g) Wetland or stream easement required. The property owner of any property affected by this section shall record wetland or stream easements with the county. The easements shall cover any wetlands, streams or wetland buffers. These easements shall describe the bound- aries of the buffer and prohibit any building, mowing, cutting, filling or dumping within the buffer, stream or wetland. The owner or developer shall record such easements with a final plat, with deeds from a lot division or before the city issues a building permit for an affected property. The applicant shall submit proof that the owner or developer has fIled the notice. (h) Buffer standards. Standards for buffers are as follows: (1) An affected property owner shall maintain a buffer. Any planting in a buffer shall be from native vegetation. CD12:40 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: ]83 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 8 12:31:10 2003 Ifirst/pubdocs/mcc/3/11217 _full BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS ~ 12-310 (2) The city prohibits the alteration of buffers. The city may waive this requirement where the watershed district has approved a permit for filling all or part of a wetland. (3) The following are the minimum required buffer widths and building foundation setbacks: Class 1 Wetland Classes Class 2 & Streams Class 3 Class 4 Average buffer width Minimum buffer width Building foundation set- back from outer edge of buffer 100 ft. 100 ft. 10 ft. 100 ft. 50 ft. 10 ft. 50 ft. 25 ft. 10 ft. 25 ft. 20 ft. 10 ft. Class 5 Oft. Oft. 10 ft." , See the definitions of buffer, wetland buffer and stream buffer. Setback measured from a wetland or stream boundary. '* (4) The minimum buffer widths shall apply to all wetlands, including those created, restored, relocated, replaced or enhanced. (5) The city may require a variable buffer width to protect adjacent habitat that the city determines is valuable to the wetland, stream, wildlife or vegetation. (i) Fencing and signs. Standards for fencing and signs are as follows: (1) Before grading or construction, the owner or contractor shall place snow fencing and erosion control fencing around the borders of buffers. Such fencing must remain in place until the owner and contractors have finished all development activities that may affect the buffer. (2) Before starting construction, the boundary between a buffer and adjacent land shall be identified using permanent signs. These signs shall mark the edge of the buffer and shall state there shall be no mowing, cutting, filling or dumping beyond this point. (3) When platting or subdividing property, the plat or subdivision must show the wetland boundaries as approved by the watershed district. (j) Mitigation and restoration of buffers. The city requires mitigation when a property owner or contractor has or will alter a buffer. The property owner or contractor shall submit a mitigation plan to the city staff for their approval. In reviewing the plan, the city may require the following actions in descending order of preference: (1) Reducing or avoiding the impact by limiting the degree or amount of the action, such as by using appropriate technology. (2) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the woodland buffer. CD12:41 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: ]84 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 8 12:3]:102003 /first/pubdocs/mcc/3/11217 _ full ~ i II ~ 12-310 MAPLEWOOD CODE (3) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by prevention and maintenance operations during the life of the actions. (4) Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing or providing substitute buffer land at up to a one-to-one ratio. (5) Monitoring the impact and taking appropriate corrective measures. Where the city requires restoration or replacement, the owner or contractor shall replant the buffer with native vegetation at a similar density to the amount before alteration. (Code 1982, ~ 9-196) Sec. 12-311. Trees. (a) Development shall be designed to preserve large trees and woodlots, where such preservation would not affect the public health, safety or welfare. The city may prohibit removal of all or a part of a woodlot or large tree, subject to the limitations in section 12-249. In addition, nothing in this article shall prevent building on an existing lot of record, provided that such building shall be designed to save as many trees as possible. This decision shall be based on but not limited to the following criteria: (1) Size. (2) Species, health and attractiveness of the trees, including: a. Sensitivity to disease. b. Life span. c. Nuisance characteristics. d. Sensitivity to site grading. (3) Potential for transplanting. (4) Need for thinning a woodlot. (5) Effect on the functioning of a development. (6) The public health, safety and welfare. @ If large trees are cut, the density of trees shall be restored to that which existed before development, but in no case shall the annlicant be reouirer! to r::llse the density above ten trees per acre, unless part of a required planting screen. ! I (c) If any large tree in a woodlot is cut, damaged or the area within the tree's drip line has been encroached upon by grading equipment without city authorization, the city may require planting of two new trees. In addition, if the city determines that a damaged tree will probably not survive, it shall be removed by the developer. (d) Any trees required to be planted shall be varied in species, shall maximize the use of species native to the area, shall not include any species under disease epidemic and shall be hardy under local conditions. Trees shall be at least 2'12 inches in diameter for deciduous trees and eight feet tall for coniferous trees. - CD12:42 JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 185 SESS: 2 OUTPUT: Tue Apr 8 12:31:10 2003 lfirst/pubdocs/mcc/3/ 11217_ full BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS ~ 12-337 (e) Any trees required to be planted shall be replaced if they die or appear to be dying within one year of planting by the person responsible for the planting. The determination of whether a tree is dying or storm-damaged may only be made under the direction of the director of community development. (I) Before any construction or grading takes place, snow fencing or erosion control fencing shall be placed around the borders of woodlots or the drip lines oflarge trees to be preserved. Signs shall be placed along this fence line prohibiting grading beyond the fence line. (Code 1982, ~ 9-197) Sees. 12-312-12-336. Reserved. DIVISION 4. UTILITIES AND STREETS Sec. 12-337. Utilities. (a) Underground placing of utilities shall be required unless economic, technological or land characteristic factors make underground placement unfeasible. Economic considerations alone shall not be the major determinant regarding feasibility. (b) Overhead crossings of protected waters, if required, shall meet the following criteria: (1) The crossings shall be adjacent to or part of an existing utility corridor, including bridge or overhead utility lines, whenever possible. (2) All structures utilized shall be as compatible as practical with land use and scenic views. (3) Right-of-way clearance shall be kept to a minimum. (4) Vegetative screening shall be utilized to the maximum extent that would be consistent with safety requirements. (5) Routing shall avoid unstable soils, bluffiines or high ridges. The alteration of the natural environment, including grading, shall be minimized. (6) The crossings shall be subject to the site planning requirements set forth in this article. (c) Utility substations shall be in accordance with the following: (1) All substations shall be subject to the site planning requirements set forth in this article. (2) New substations or refurbishment of existing substations shall be compatible in height, scale, building materials, landscaping and signing with surrounding natural environment or land uses. Screening by natural means is encouraged. (d) Pipelines shall be in accordance with the following: (1) All proposed pipelines and underground facilities shall be subject to the site planning requirements set forth in this article. CD12:43 Attachment 2 City of Maplewood Draft Ordinance ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION OF TREES AND WOODLANDS Revised: July 10,2006 Purpose. The city desires to protect the integrity of the trees and woodlands in the City of Maplewood. Trees and woodlands provide better air quality, scenic beauty, protection against wind and water erosion, natural insulation for energy conservation, an e beneficial in watershed management. Trees and woodlands also provide wildlife privacy as screening, act as natural sound and visual buffers, and increase pr y values. It is therefore the city's intent to protect, preserve, and enhance the natural e 0 t of Maplewood and to encourage a resourceful and prudent approach to developme the c ereby, promoting and protecting public health, safety, and welfare for the' n fMap d. The purpose of this article is to establish a tree preservation and prote n or nance to ass e continuance of significant natural features for present and futur neration which: 3. Protect water quality. I. Preserve the natural character of neighborhood 2. Protect the health and safety of r 4. 5. areas to minimize tree loss and environmental 6. ation and mitigation of environmental impacts 1. Thi develo This incl Minor home (i.e. garage, sh any individual, business, or entity that engage in a building or ich requires issuance of a grading permit or new building permit. I site f new development that contain significant trees or woodlots. s, general home improvements, construction of accessory buildings applications are excluded from the requirements of this article. 2. Public and semipublic projects, such as streets, utilities and parks, whether built by a public agency or private developer, shall be subject to this article, except that the City Council after review and recommendation from the environmental committee may waive these requirements where there would be a greater public need for the project than to meet the requirements of this article. A public hearing shall be held before declaring such a waiver. The property owners within (500 feet! of the site shall be notified at least ten (10) days before the hearing. Page I of 10 Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meanmg: Applicant means developer, builder, contractor or homeowner who applies for a building or grading permit. Caliper means a tree trunk measurement of nursery stock as stated by the American Nursery and Landscape Association standards of six (6) inches above ground for tre s up to four (4) inches caliper. City Forester means a certified tree inspector/for appropriate agent designated by the city. ng the tree trunk with a .g., a sixteen (16) inch diameter Certified Forester means a person whom holds a minimum of arboriculture, urban forestry, or similar field from an accredi registered with the International Society of Arboricultur Coniferous/Evergreen Tree means a woody plant having branches year-round which at maturity i least twelve (12 and Larch are included as coniferous tree . ea es annually, having a defined crown and lance ound and away from the trunk of a tree that rain or dew om the leaves or branches of that tree. Environmental programs, or appro s an employee of the city who manages city-wide environmental nt designated by the city. Hardwood Deciduou ree means the following tree species: ash, basswood, birch, black cherry, catalpa, hackberry, hickory, ironwood, hard maples (sugar maple or red maple), locust, oak, and walnut. Landmark Tree is a healthy tree of any species twenty-eight (28) inches in diameter or greater. These trees are considered significant trees. Page 2 of 10 Major Home Addition means an addition or accessory building on a single or double dwelling lot of which addition or accessory building is more than a sixty (60) percent increase in the footprint of the single or double dwelling structure on said lot. Minor Home Addition means an addition or accessory building on a single or double dwelling lot of which addition or accessory building is less than a sixty (60) percent increase in the footprint of the single or double dwelling structure on said lot. Retaining Wall means a structure utilized to hold a slope in a position i naturally remain. Structure means an positioned on land, inclu , 0 erected which is normally attached to or Specimen Tree is a healthy tree of any species twenty-eight (2 These trees are considered Significant Trees. Significant Natural Feature means a significant water of historical or archeological significance that has box elder, cottonwood, elm, Tree Pr clearly sho also include c forestation lands plan pared with the assistance of a certified forester, which preserved and measures taken to preserve them. The plan will rmine the number of replacement trees required and proposed re- Utility means electric, waste, gas or similar phone, telegraph, cable television, water, sanitary or storm sewer, solid rvice operations. Vegetation means all plant growth, especially trees, shrubs, mosses or grasses. Wetland as defined in the wetland ordinance (Section ). Wilding Tree means a tree that was not grown or maintained by a nursery. Page 3 of 10 Woodlot means a treed area on a vacant lot, of which includes significant tree(s). Woodlot alteration permit. A woodlot alteration application shall be submitted to the environmental manager for review by the city forester for any alteration of a woodlot that is not reviewed in another application. The applicant shall submit a tree plan and any other information needed to determine compliance with this article. Specific requirements shall be stated on an application form in the office of the environmental manager. An application fee shall be established by the city council by resolution yearly. Failure to submit an approved woodlot alteration permit before land clearing will result a two year ratorium for attainment of grading permit or building permit in addition to total tree repl for the parcel. Tree replacement as outlined in Tree MitigationlReplacement Sched .th assumption all trees are significant. Tree preservation plan. A tree prese land use permit, grading permit, or bui removal of dead, diseased, or dying trees applicant's best effort to determine the mo eaSl lots, driveways, streets, stora e and other pH ic are destroyed or damage tree replacements wil request a waiver fr complies with this qualified agent ra 'on. The in writing en decision. The environmental manager may approve a woodlot article and receive recommendations from the city designated by the environmental manager conce environmental manager's decision may be app by any affected party within fifteen (15) days of the en r on 1 shall included preservation graphic and ta plat that shows size, species, general health, and location . in the area to be developed or within the parcel of ups 0 tanding dead or diseased significant trees shall be noted 11 tree inventories shall be preformed by a certified forester and the engineer's grading plan contours. All significant trees e tree ventory must be tagged in the field for reference on the tree ese significant trees should be identified on the plan sheet( s) in both form. 1. 2. A certified forester must approve the tree preservation plan. 3. The tree preservation plan must be drawn at the same scale as the other site plan submittals. Page 4 of 10 4. A tree preservation plan which coincides with necessary engineering documents such as topography, wetland information, grading plans, road, and building locations must include: a. A list of total diameter inches of all healthy significant trees inventoried. b. Listing ofthe total diameter inches of healthy significant trees removed. The name(s), telephone number(s), and address(s) of the per (s) responsible for tree preservation during the course of the development project. 8. Location of trees protected delineation of tree protection fen parking, debris storage, and wash 0 10. Signature 0 5. Outer boundaries of all contiguous wooded areas, wit meeting the significant tree size threshold and any in tree diseases. 6. Delineation of all limits of land disturbance 7. Locations of the proposed buildings, structures, 9. s proposed to be planted on the ent schedule. These pi forester revis' writmg. the enVl ental manager, with advisement from the city ordinance and will either be approved or returned for ed on the tree preservation plan, or otherwise stated in I. designed to preserve significant trees and woodlots, where such preservation w not affect the public health, safety or welfare. The city may prohibit removal of all r a part of a woodlot or significant tree subject to the limitations as defined in this chapter. This decision shall be based on but not limited to the following criteria: a. Size. b. Species, health, and attractiveness of the trees, including: Page 5 of 10 2. Safeguarding preserved trees: the tree preservation plan s (existing) significant trees that are to be preserved wit a fencing. I) Sensitivity to disease. 2) Life span. 3) Nuisance characteristics. 4) Sensitivity to site grading. 5) Potential for transplanting. 6) Need for thinning a woodlot. 7) Effects on the functioning of a development. 8) Fragmentation of wooded area and effects on wildlife corridors. 9) The public health, safety and welfare. a. b. c. work I begin until tree protection fencing has been installed, proved by the city forester. At least three (3) working days ion or grading, applicant shall be required to request inspection te pro tive measures by the city forester. Once the tree protection ices are approved by the city forester, it must not be altered or lthout prior from the city forester. e. Tree protection fencing shall be maintained and repaired by the applicant for the duration of construction. No grade change, construction activity, storage or staging of materials shall occur within this fenced area. f. Minimize tree wounding by felling or removing trees away from trees remaining on site. Page 6 of 10 g. Layout of the project site utility and grading plans should accommodate the tree preservation areas. Utilities recommended along corridors between tree preservation areas and use of common trenches or twmel installation if possible. h. Construction site activities such as parking, material storage, concrete washout, placement of holes, etc., shall be arranged so as not to encroach on tree protection areas. 1. Identify and prevent oak wilt infection. Treat all kno with current accepted guidelines including root cutti pruning oaks is required between April I and July nontoxic tree wound sealant or latex paint. J. Use of wood chip mulch to a depth of six protection areas to minimize soil comIl moisture) recommended. k. No concrete washout, leakage or spilla paints, is prohibited in tree preservation ar change in soil chemistry. 1. Installation of retaining wa trees. isting grade for preserve m. I) dlor irrigation systems. with 8 to 10 inches of wood chips. . ng with deep tillage or other similar methods. IOn of organic matter to existing soil. 3) o. Transplant existing trees to a protected area for future transplanting onto permanent sites within the construction area. Page 7 of 10 3. If any significant tree stated as preserved (protected) in the approved tree preservation plan is cut, damaged, or encroached upon by grading equipment or during the construction process without city authorization and is determined by the environmental manager, that the damaged tree(s) will probably not survive, the said damaged tree(s) shall be removed by the applicant at their expense and replacement tree( s) required. Tree Mitigation/Replacement Schedule. If less than 20 (20%) percent of significant tree diameter inches is lost, the applicant shall replace one two and one-half diameter tree per significant tree removed. Once the threshold of twenty (20%) percent otal diameter inches is reached, additional tree mitigation/reforestation is required. Any de t where more than twenty (20%) percent of the existing significant diameter inches moved shall mitigate tree loss in accordance with the following formula: 1. A = Total Diameter Inches of Significant Trees I B = Total Diameter Inches of Significant Tree C = Tree Replacement Constant (1.5) D = Replacement Trees (Number of Cali ((AlB -.20) x C) x A = D Example A = 379 B = 943 C =1.5 D=160 ((379/943 The trees requir required to hapter shall be in addition to any other trees Ision of City code. Onc tree ent trees are determined the applicant shall mitigate es in appropriate areas within the development in accordance nt schedule. 2. on city property under the direction of the environmental 3. Paying the city a sum per diameter inch calculated from the total number of diameter inches required for replacement trees in accordance with the tree replacement schedule. The fee per diameter inch shall be set forth in the city fee schedule, and the payment shall be deposited into an account designated specifically for tree planting on public property within Maplewood. Page 8 of 10 4. The form of mitigation to be provided by the applicants shall be determined by the City. 5. The applicant shall be required to maintain trees for two (2) year after planting. Should any tree require replacement during this two (2) year period, the replacement period shall start at the date of replacement. The replacement period shall not exceed two (2) years from the original planting date. 6. Species requirements: Where ten (10) or more replacement trees area required, not more than thirty (30) percent shall be of the same type of tree w' ut the approval of the environmental manager. Native tree species to the Maplewo e preferred. 8. The lowest bran ground more must have not be a height above the surface of the ight of the tree (e.g., a fourteen (14) foot tree urface of the surrounding ground). 7. Sources of trees: Replacement trees shall consist of c Minnesota Statutes, Section 18.46 hardy for this US or 4 hardiness rated trees) or other trees includi '1 trees comply with the following standards ar manager or city forester. All replacement es shall e healthy and disease infestation. A wilding tree m in Call maximum height as shown on the table below: than two and one-half (2.5) caliper inches evergreen ree unless pre-approved by the environmental ous tree height convert to caliper measurement as follows: uals two and one-half (2.5) caliper inches for each equals one (1) additional caliper inch. 9. Tree r landscape estimated co until success responsibility deposit required. The applicant shall post with the City a dep. t or letter of credit of one hundred and fifty (150) percent of e replacement for proposed planting. Funds will be held by the city ompletion of final planting inspection. It shall be the applicant's o call for such inspection. 10. The city reserves the right to inspect the construction site at any time for compliance with the tree preservation plan. Should the city find the site in violation of the approved tree preservation plan, they may issue a stop work order until conditions are corrected and approved by the environmental manager. Page 9 of 10 Effect on density. The city may reduce the maximum allowed density on that part of a development that has a significant natural feature, where such reduction would save all or part of a significant natural feature. However, regardless of the requirements in this article, the maximum allowed density shall not be reduced below 67 percent of the allowed density in the city's land use plan for multiple dwellings. The minimum lot size shall not be increased above 15,000 square feet for single dwellings. Any required density reduction or increase in lot size must save a significant natural feature. The city council may require the clustering of dwellings in the form of townhouses, quads, apartments, or similar uses where it is necessary to preserve significant natural features. Page 10 of 10 Attachment 3 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: CLIENT: RE: June 15,2006 Dave Ramberg Sam Maplewood New Tree and Woodlands Preservation and Protection Ordinance This is very new and different to anything that Maplewood has ever enacted. Permissibilitv Under MN law Under Minn. Stat. 412.221, subd. 8, "The council shall have power to provide for, and by ordinance regulate, the setting out and protection of trees, shrubs, and flowers in the city or upon its property." How this statute is enforced on private lands in the citv The city of Maplewood has decided to try to more effectively protect its trees and woodlands on private lands in the city by conditioning the issuance of grading and building permits upon compliance with this ordinance. This seems to be a reasonable condition, and to be within the power of the municipality. How this statute is enforced on public lands in the citv Under Minn. Stat. 448.56, the city of Maplewood is able to regulate the trees and woodlands in public lands under this ordinance. Purpose of this ordinance In talking to Dwayne Kinercko, I found that the purpose of this ordinance is to more aggressively protect and preserve the trees and woodlands in Maplewood. Also, they want to get the city to take a leadership role in preservation of its trees. There is also more of a focus upon science, which will require the city to employ a city forester with a background in the area. Chad believes that the last section of the ordinance on natural features be added to subdivision ordinance as well. Although he does think this is a good provision. Also, under the section labeled "Tree Preservation Measures," I would suggest an insertion of "written approval" in the last sentence of 2.( d) so that it reads: "... removed without prior written approval from the city forester." '" 0) u <= .. <= ~ o <= o .~ 1: 0) '" ~ i:l... 0) ~ "'" o <= o '" .~ 0. E o U ~ .. ... ... = I: '" '" '" ell e "'.!! '" ...... '" => I: ..!"'C..! 0.<=0. '" => '" Cl::CClCl:: '" ....!::l <='" "'.., 5-.., '" => '" ",.CI ... co 1"Il.... - '" = c....'" ~ ~ ~ ... I: <= '" => 5 .. '" 'tl ... Q,) 'S ... '" => '" ~Cl:: '" '" ... ... ... <= .. '" lo: .. I: ell r;:; '" ... => - .., => => ~ E - .. ..c .. '" .. - c. c. < ~ 'a = e e => U '" - '" 0) = t;l '" 8' 0) OJ ... >. 8 ...- 0) 0) U ~ "g"' ~ -067 i:l.....c ... o - >. - .. '" <= 0) .., ~ o ~ ~ o - ~ ~ .S 8 11 ......... rJ':J .;!.l ~ 0) ~ 8 ,g OJ) <="", .Sl 0 .~ .. 0) "" 0) <= Q) ~:.:= ~ s::= 6.. 0) OJ).!:: ~.tii"'O OJ) <= ~~ .- .a ... u 0) >< ~ lI) .." 0) ... 0) ... 0) "0 bO~_ ... ~ 0) o ~ >< 00;a2 .0 Ed ~ ~ .- 0 OJ)u ;:: <= "'" 0) .9 0 E ';j.. A u 0 0 .- u- 0.. Q) <U o..=: t <00 <= .. 0"","'" .- 0 0 1;; t:: .~ ~ ~ -00. 0.- ... g..5 0 >.o.o~....... .~ = l-; 0 U '.;:: ~:; 2~~g < ~ - ~ 0) "0"0 o 0 oU ~ ;:: ~ 0) g.l:: 28 q:: 00 ... Ql 0 .9- ;g - 0 .. '" U"O N .. ~ u - 0) N"O OJ) <= '2 'a tI:l 8 0) 0) 0) ... j:: '" lil ~ -j:: 0.0) 0_ o...c . .. "0 ... 0'- o '" ~~ <= = o '" :t::"O 8 a - "6 ..= ~ gj U u d ::::::::00 ~ :t:: .- Vl 0 "oon '" 0.- 0) 0) "'" ~"Oo - '" o - U lil ~ 1l 0) 8 ~ ;>.. tU .5 ~] ~ ~ ~ "0 0) ;> o 0) 81;; ~~"3 on ... U ..N2ea ~ ~ 0) U '2 .Sl ~ ~ 8<'6-5 ... 0) ~ .e-~ ~ c;\o ....... d U ""' .... -t:i Q) 0 c.SESN;g ;;;.-. = (l) "'0 0 .-=..sg~~~~ u A- "'0 "'0._ >...... fr ~'u = a8~{/}~8 -s ""'"' .~ .8 U dc.$ 0) '" 8 0) 0) ~ U _ .2:!M o.M 0) . ... - - = ..... 0 _ 0 ~ e "'0 ~.~ o(l 0) _ = s = Q) OJ) I:':S i:d._ t:: g ~..g g:BtB Q) .~.t:: 0 "'0 ~ rn U N cd.5 N ~" - - 0) ~ - 0) ~~ .5 N ...- 0) '" 1;; ... O)~ bh 'j3 ... 0 oU "0 ... 0 o ~ i:oq:: "0 0 000 o ..: ~ 0) ]~ ::c: 50 00 .5 N ..: 0) '" _ 0) .... 0) U ... 0) OJ) 0. ... '" o >. .a~ .- .. 0)._ ..= "0 -"'" o 0 ~ =='S ~ 0) <Ei!:: 8 ;> _ 0) '5h.s ~ 0...2 = s:::.- 1-; l-o oQ)~t8.s .~ ~ ti ~ ~ U 0 OJ)._ 8 ..... 1-0 cd >. ]:'~ ~ ]: ~ ......""""..N ;:: 11 0) .. E 0) ., U U .. lilo. o.~ o 0) - 0) - ... .- - E<il 0) - o.'s '" <= '0 on .9: (l)_ = _""''''0 .- OJ)'- 0 0 ] gf.S =8 ,8 ~ 0lJ'- "'0 Clj ~ .... ~:s!~Q)o~ o .- u e ca 0 IU.E~O>~ u~ "=Oon ~~'~8~N ~ ... 0) '-8 ....2 _ 0 0.. 0....... lil 0) >. 0) <= o = .- "0 o 0"0 ~ 0) 0) '" - 0 0) 0. 0. "0 .. 0 0 2P:u Attachment 4 >.B--a15 ~~>ll.l_-:s l:: 0) g ~ = = .. j:: " U 0) 0 ~ OJ) ~.2:! ~ 8 l-;.g t; fr ~ 00 c:::l.....-~ 1-<_ tI:l ~:.:= >."'0 0.. 0) I ~ cd = ~ <IJ N 0 0.. cd ~.:= ... ... 0 dO.,j .- "'0 0 "0 0) 0 ;!( ;> ~ o 0 "0 ;;:: E lil ~ ~..= ..9~~ --0 <.aM tIl _~~-g '" "0 d "'" to e 0 ~ .- t; _" 0 ..... ~ ~.~ S Q).9 ~ ~ <= "0 "00 'E l-< l-o l-< o ~ ""0 0 I-< Q) I-< Q) u..c=g~~v~v 'g? = .2:! "0 .& ='2 = o ~ fr lil ., .fJ UO .fJ M+:ll-<~U""O ""0 "0 o o .E1l o ill "'"'" o Ii) <= ... - <= _ 0 0 ~8""Oca.~ o(l 0) - = S E (I) 00 ~ cd..... u ~ u "" .... ~ ~..;:j ~:.a 0 0) .~'!:: 0"0 "" ~ rJ'.l U N ro.5 ..... + ""0 ~ (I):: I-<O~~1eo 00..... .... Q) M rJ'.l ~ ....= ... 0) 0) \0 4:: ~ 0 00 Q) .u ""OoOjUbb8. 8~bhti'cd5~ ~O)s,,'688 ~ ~:: ~:,5.~ cd ::c: 5b~:.a00~:.a ~ ~ ca 0) _0 ;> j:: 0 '0-0 00 1:: ca e ........... ~ ,J..... .... Q) 0..... 015:0..1-< M ;;> ~ Q) Q) Q) ..... .... ""0 U Q) B ;:::: .~ .~ ~ b 0.. 0 - Q) ""0 c: =:S"a~1-<"Q)Q)8 ~ ;> lil:':: -g._ :::@~o.Eu~ .......0)...=0)><0. ........ 0 0.. Q) rJ'.l .~ 0) 0. '" ~ '5 0- ~ OJ) <= :.a 00 00 ~ ~ c: 00..... :.a ~:9=:so o.S u"" Q).L:J.:: ~ g ~ .'::.9 ro (I) ~.~ ;:l = !:: "0 rJ'.l I-< Q) ""0 ~ 0 P. ro '" 0) OJ)U .5 ~ "0 ... ... _ '" 0) ..... rJ'.l 1e '" '" 0) ..c " ... -00J) ro..... I-< .g i:: 0 Q) Q);:R ~ .~S o ... >. U o..c 0) "0 CO "'U .J:J;:: "0 0) o l:: o ;:l ~u .c- .. .. - := = Col " " CIl e "'.9 " .. - .. <:> ::: ..!"'O..s! Q,:::Q, ~~~ " _.!::l :::'" ""0 e- " <:> ...= " '" - " Q,.. ~~ - ::: ::: " <:> e .. " - .. .. .. ~ := e g' =-~ " " .. E-< - ::: " .. l.:: .. ::: CIl Ci5 c..-. ~ 0.= or) .. ",N " d- _u"," OJ ""' 0 -~ ~ ~ "0._ 0 ::: "0 .. o 0) U "" .. '" ...... U 0) <Ii 0) ~ - t:: 0) "'" S o 0) 0) U :="s 'dfr ;. .. .. <8 '" ~-d ;:; 0) "" 6 "0' S ~ e ~+ ~~ "0 [@ '" '" 0) ~'5 ""' 15 l:l & &00 ll) (J:I:'=:: :::::So U a d ;:l ..:g"-U"'O 0....... .- 0) S", U ~'OON~ 0) U [@ E <8 .. 0) Q, o Z .. ;.,.. tEl:;:: 0 ~~~ ~~'S d 0) 0) ~00:"9 ::1.8 ~ OJ) '" .. 'd ::: "'"._ ....... 00 'O:.E bll"'O ~ ~ 00 ....... ....... ~ c ~ ~ o 1-0 ~ ~'~.:=: ro 4:: 2 ~ c u ~t8......c ::>:g,.s::: t1) 0 c ';J.. Q) 0) ....... "'0 00'"" (',) ;.., 4:: 0 ~ 0 o E(1)"2Q)~.Ec~lr)~tUoo~" o t1) OJ C :> ~ Co) ~ ~ 0"'- 0 >'..s::: ~ .- ll) to) Cd b"3 .5 0 ~ 00.5 ~ .- E ,3 "O;:;"s a '" U .q:;....'d-=;;;;"O 0::: '., .. c.. ;:l ~ 'd .:S or) "", -0 'S "", <) 8.;! o..tS: ~o p.,U"'O-~_ ~~..s:::oo... q:; '" 8 o <l:: 0) .8 OJ) 0)_ ::: - d Cd on._ ""' I-o.S 'S ~ ~ '" 0) '8 ..9 '$- :"9 0-0 VJ U<N~ - B~~ Ol_ .~ ] 8 .. 'd e tS: 'E 8';J.. fl) ';J..",::-9 0....'" ~-.::t~ "0 " .. 'S C" " .. q:; 4-;1.(')........ ~~~Sj ~ ... Q) """ ....- "'0 u c.8 ~ ["s 0) t1) Ol) fr_~ .. ::: .. ~.-... ...... "0 ;:l .9::-:::: 0 c::: """:::::s- tU <.o~;S N. .-,r "ON 0) , ;.00 0: 5<8 .. '" 00 0) -~ -0 ::: lao -aS2 ad ""''''OC'1a 0) - ::: 0 E (1) OJ) Cl:S Cd._ U e\S U <IJ ....... ~ '~:5 ~ ~ ~ "" ::: ,.s:::4-;OVJOO '.-_0 0)::: ><: "'0'0'- .- ~ d 0) 0) "0 E+-'"3~p.,.E caC=..ccng .. 80) l:: '" o<l.- . ~ u 0 C1) "'0 "'0 l-; tlJ ~ 'C llJ 0 ~ ~ o.~ ~ ~ 8 e _ 'C 01.l tIl 0 ;>._ Sc..-O)O)S<l::::: o OJ Cl:S 1a tU 0'- u~8u;:;~",8 .. ~];g "'0 ~ cc_g l-ooc~....tU8-g0l) .0 ~.;: '8 ~ .s 2:> ~.~ \.0 d:: E O..d ~ an .... 0 I-; "'0 0 ~ u .~ p., ""' ....... u ~ Or/l~I-;"Q)CI)Oa4-;o O.~bOlU..d ..,ctluOu ~[),,",~c~:.ati::'""'~ "0 - 0 ~.- - + .~ E ..d. ~d. '" Cl:S tU" ....... <1.)'" :l 0 ..,... 1-0 N ._ N k 0 '_...... ""' ,..&.or 0.0- "'0......... OiJM rJ:l u u '" ... <:> :;; <:> <:> ~ , , , , , , ::: [@ 0 OJ) ::: :::q:; ::: 0 c.. 0< ~ OJ) . Oil S .~ .. 0 ::: [@- 0 .c ~ ~ o...;g ;S .. c "'" '3 ~ U - 0) 0 0) .. .~ .. 0 .= ",.....l CO .. 0) " 0) 0) 0 ~ OJ) .. .. ' U ~ - ::: .. c..u ::: .. .. " - lU '5 "0 d 0) E 0 :9G Q, d ;:l Z U Q, 0) '" '3 ~'6 ~ '" .. 0) "'" ::: < '" - 0 =- 0.0 0 .c- " 0) '" '" .. 0 0 ::: U U ;:l Ci - S ] ::: e ~ ~ 1a ~ <:> - ~;:l U '" U r.ilU 'E "' Od c: tI.l """ Q) ",0 Q) 'o,A,J c: Q)'- :::.. OJ)u !3 .- ""i' c\S Q) r.t.l ~ Q., S:::...... c\S Ii).- 0[) 0 Q) "'" -i3'0il to. 8 .. 0) .. 0) .. OJ) .. o .. 0) ~lJ ";;; ~ ~;.a ~ .5 0) ~ .. ;:l -" 0 g":B~ t) g~~~ lr)~..J.~ 00 0 00 , ::: S ..-,r os:.. ~ t-; p..~Q)~ 5 Q) ~ 'S g ~;;a 8 - '" 0) 1:l OJ) 'U; 12 00 1:: "'0 Q) 0)[@-5 S _.5 0) d ~ ~u ~ -all, U ~.....:~ "0 ~ >-, ~ .D gj"O ::: v u >-, = r.n _._ v a E ~ t: v - '" ~ U~~ l'- o ~ '" 0..'" ::l2 ~"S~ .... v 0 ~e- ,P tU l:::: ~ u 0 v '" '" ~"'S..~ ~ ~.t= ~ >-,= '- ~ v ~.@ g, ~ ~ ~ ._ 0 QJ ClUCl .... (Joj,;dtn c.8 v 0 V tU_ ~ q:: 0"'2 .l:l ~...... \0 '0 Cl 00001:: l-; Cd elf;; (l.) t> 0 ~~ t>...... s.::- ~ c.. ~ cd l-; ~ "'3 0 ~ 0 ~c.8..$u.g~; ~ ~ fr fn 'u = tU -B~~M~8~ v ~~ " ~OO =..... OI,)U r.n O!J.... 0.) = ca .~ ~ s 'u u ~ e 00 c: '.;::: c c.. cd ~'S ~ o(l S .... v " 0.) .... O!J .... o .... v ~ v a - '" <~ 00 '" v '" 0.) ~ 0.) 0.) .... ~ ;;; ;so.. ~g~ 00....1>5 ~ !a S a .., ll) .... (l) E.c4: g NI-;--"'O B ~ 0.. (l.) ~ 0.)._ 0.) .... .Q ~ E ~'g. :::;::.- Q) ~ f1) ......... ""c:l 0-.;..0 l-; O!J = :.a OJ) f:! = d:g ~ 'S oal 0.) u :. ~ a ;>.- ::l Z E '" .... 0.) ~OQ..; ~ 1:! 5 ] ~ alU v "0 o U 'c'?- on O.)N u_ ~ I <2 .... .... '" 0.) ::l i:l-;O!J v'll ~ .:::~ o en""" U _"'].... Il) C) cd ~ dcdl::oEo ~O!Ja....:'a.l:l8b =<UcdtUgfo..5 -..... u ;> S!..... ~ <1) .J::15:cdO~tn(l)U :::: '" 0.. a 0..';< ..s:: = ~"a~~~Q)~~ o:~ cjc~~ ~~v)cd ..... "'0 C 1n o ~ ,:2 = ~.- g ..... 0 o '" ~:a 0.. ....,..::;-g:a ~ I; '" .Qa -- ~ -;:: ~!a - (1).- <~.t::~..s::: ...., ~~ ~.$ ~ ::l iJ E .~ ~ <2 9) ~.~ - - .... ~ o..~ :a~a 0.) ... ~ ~ ,,00='';::: O!J U '" gf ~ '00 B ~ ._ cd ",o::S u.~ v .... gj ~.i:: C Po; ll) .;:: tl ~ o(l a ~ tf.l 1-0 0.) ::l 0.) 1a 0 I:lJ) ~ ::l!a 01,) :-9-: l-; l-; U 0 t)oB..g- _ ""C:l 11) 0 r.f:I ll) 0 ~ ""c:l r.8 g ~ 0 a 0 I-; a :. .- ~o N v ..... of; "'0 -~ ;' !a ~ 0 "8 .~ OO..c-ooCdu O!J = .- "0 O!J f:! = 032 ~ 'S oal 0.) u :. ~ 1ii ;> .- ::l Z E '" .... 0.) $oQ..; v "0 o U v ..0: ~ ~ 08 d .S: ~ u O!Je = ~ '@ ~ "0 8 = '" O!J o .~ = "'0 u'- 0.) 0.) "0 tf.l 0...2 ~ 00 0 '" o(l.s . ~ QJQ)"'O"'O 'C N (l) 0 ~'<;J I; ~.5 ~ ~ a q:: 'a5 u .t= ~ ~ ~ '" 0.) ~ ra 00 '<;J-..1:! 'E "'0 u va.5 a_--: 0.) '" '" ~..,o u -a in In. 0.) . ....-N c >-,- . .D . "0 "0 a = ll) (J,) "'0 0 0.) = <t: .D C ........ on ~ '" c 1'1 = 0 i 6 5'2 E 0~:g~<2 -0: ;..,..... (l) "'0 vi ~:a51ii~ ;;>Q)U"'l:j"'" e~cd(l)"'O ill'o].tj ~ tU 1-0 1-0 - h ...= tU 1-0 0.. t/) VJ :::: cd l-o (1) ~ ~ ~c.8 0. 2.... C = "' l-; .S< ~ 0..= 0 "'0 ~ .:::: \0 <Ll 8.t::"t:lI-<~S::M ::1\00 0.) ~ 1;l 2 0 .8 ...., a "! l:l ~"O.2~a,,~ .c.o~ p..~~~~~05l1J~0 o ~........- ..... ,.J a "0 1-<....... ::1 "t:l lZl _ 1-<'_ 1-<..... "' ::l a....... o',p 0 a'- 0 """ "" u ......=.......... u... 0 ~ ....... ~ u ::1 u ~ 0 u u E- ~ ~ B.5 8 ~ b. ~~ ~ ~ ~~ 0 en V :> 0.) OJ) C lIJ'.,e ~ c._ 00 0 ::s .-..... ~ ~ u 0.. = ~ gj 5.- O!J 0 0.) ~.{j'oo b. e .... ~ 0.) 6h.... 0.) """ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0'- ::l"O "0< :.a 'u \.0 Oo~o(l .... O!J 0.) = '" ~:.allJ ;:j o ;::S ~ ~ 5-l....... C -+:i OJ) ~._ ~. '" I-<lIJ"= Od~ o '-'U ~ g ~ i'~ ~ ~ <;; ~ u ..... """ "t:l lIJ lIJa <.I:l'9"i)i:l-;=a .-'c I -- 0 ~'u = O!J >< a U E 0.) o .- ~ ....... ~ 0 0.. U tI) _ (1) en tI) , , , .... .. O!J 0.) ',p ..0 ~ C lIJ = '" lIJ ~.~ .- 0.) = ~ 6h'<;J a '8 0.) 0: .... '" .... 0 = '" .. 0 tI).9 ~ .~ U ~ '" 0 '" 0'- - v "i) - :> ...., ~ "0 .- ~ 0"0 1ii v ~.g..s:: 0 '" i:l-; '" ~ U ::l v !a "0 0 0.) U al ~ v = ~ 0.) :a 0.) t:: ~~::l ...lU MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: Greg Copeland, Interim City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Carpet Court Gary Blair 1685 Arcade Street July 14, 2006 INTRODUCTION Project Description Gary Blair is proposing to develop a 7,848-square-foot retail/warehouse carpet store on a vacant lot located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Highway 61 (1685 Arcade Street). Mr. Blair wants to relocate his existing Carpet Court store in SI. Paul to this new location. The building will consist of approximately 3,966 square feet of retail space and 3,882 square feet of warehouse/storage space. As proposed, the building would have steel horizontal siding, stucco wall finishes, stone wainscot, and a metal roof. Requests In order to develop the proposed retail/warehouse carpet store, Mr. Blair is requesting the following city approvals: 1. Rezone one-third of the property from single dwelling residential (R-1) to business commercial (BC). 2. Vacation of a public right-of-way (service road). The service road is located on the east side of the property, adjacent Highway 61. 3. A 42.5-foot building setback variance. City code requires a 50-foot building setback from a commercial building to a residential lot line. The proposed building would be constructed within 7.5 feet of the residential lot line on the northwest side of the building. 4. Design review. The planning commission should review and make recommendations on items 1 through 3 at the July 18, 2006, meeting. The community design review board will review and make a recommendation on item 4 at the July 25, 2006, meeting. Final city council review is currently scheduled for August 14, 2006. BACKGROUND November 20, 2000: The planning commission reviewed a development proposal by Mr. Blair for the vacant property on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Arcade Street (Attachment 9). The development proposal included an 8, 160-square-foot, two- story building for his carpet store and warehouse. The proposal required a rezoning of one-third of the property from R-1 to BC, a 25-foot building setback variance from a residential lot line, and a 13 percent impervious surface variance. The planning commission tabled the proposal, requesting that Mr. Blair revise his plans to eliminate the need for variances. Mr. Blair never resubmitted plans for that development. October 2005: Mr. Blair submitted a new development proposal for a 7,653-square-foot building for his carpet store and warehouse (Attachment 10). During review of the project, the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) indicated that they were interested in turning back the frontage road to the city. March 9, 2006: MNDOT authorized the turn-back of the frontage road to the city. March 20, 2006: The planning commission reviewed a concept plan of Mr. Blair's revised development proposal which included the frontage road being vacated and combined as part of the property. The planning commission expressed concern over the amount of impervious surface and the location of the driveways. March 28, 2006: The CDRB reviewed Mr. Blair's revised concept plans and expressed extreme concern over the style of building proposed at that location. DISCUSSION Zoning/Comprehensiye Land Use Mr. Blair's property is located in a triangular tract of land which is bordered by Highway 61 on the east, Larpenteur Avenue on the south, and Parkway Drive on the northwest. This triangular tract of land includes 11 lots. All 11 lots are guided in the city's comprehensive plan as BC, however, only six of the lots are actually zoned BC, with the other five zoned R-1. (Refer to the zoning and comprehensive land use maps attached [Attachments 3 and 4]). Six of the lots contain single-family homes, four of the lots are vacant (including Mr. Blair's property), and one is used as a building contractor office (Bacchus Homes). Mr. Blair's property is located on the northwest corner of Larpenteur Avenue and Highway 61 and includes two of the 11 lots mentioned above. The east lot is zoned and guided in the city's comprehensive plan as BC and the west lot is zoned R-1 and guided as BC. In order to develop a carpet store and warehouse on the property, the western lot must be rezoned from R-1 to BC. Previous Use of Property Mr. Blair purchased the property in 1998. Approximately 30 to 40 years ago there was a gas station on the property. Prior to purchasing the property Mr. Blair states that the old gas tanks were removed and that contaminated soils were removed and replaced. Mr. Blair states that he was issued verification that the property meets the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's standards for site clean up. The city should require that Mr. Blair submit this verification prior to issuance of a building permit. This condition will be part of the design review conditions of approval. 2 Vacation of a Public Right-of-Way There is a 325-foot-long service road which runs north/south between the property and Highway 61. This road was designed to allow access from Larpenteur Avenue to the three properties located on the east side of the triangular tract of land. During MNDOT's review of Mr. Blair's 2005 development proposal, MNDOT offered to turn back the service road to the city. MNDOT supported the turn back of the service road in order to increase traffic safety and alleviate their maintenance of a small, underutilized service road. To increase safety, MNDOT requested that the property be limited to one driveway onto Larpenteur Avenue and that it be constructed as far away from the intersection (west) as possible. After redesigning the development to accommodate for the vacation of the service road, however, Mr. Blair states that he is not able to develop the property with a loading dock and parking lot without two driveways. The eastern driveway will access the parking lot. This driveway will be set back 52.5 feet from the new easterly property line (approximately 60 feet from the actual intersection). The western driveway will access the loading dock. This driveway will be set back 140 feet from the new easterly property line (approximately 182 feet from the actual intersection). MNDOT has reviewed this proposal and finds it acceptable based on the challenges of developing this lot. However, they strongly recommend that Mr. Blair continue to examine alternatives such as having a shared driveway for the loading dock and the parking lot, etc. Steve Krummer of the Maplewood engineering department reviewed Mr. Blair's proposal and has submitted an engineering review (Attachment 12). Mr. Krummer states that Mr. Blair should consider reconfiguring the parking lot layout to eliminate the easterly most driveway entrance and attempt to realign the western driveway to be in line with Gustavus Adolphus' driveway located across the street, which would be approximately 160 feet from the new easterly property line. In addition, Mr. Krummer expresses concern over trucks having to back onto Larpentuer Avenue in order to exit the loading dock. He suggests that a different site and building layout be proposed which allows for one entry from Larpenteur Avenue. This design would allow trucks to turn around in the parking lot prior to entering Larpenteur Avenue. Since the planning commission and CDRB concept reviews of this proposal in March, city staff has attempted to encourage Mr. Blair to shift the building and parking lot on the site to accommodate for the concerns expressed by Mr. Krummer. Mr. Blair has stated, however, that due to the setback requirements to a residential lot line and the shape of the lot, the proposed site layout with two driveways is the best option for his business. City staff is supportive of the turn-back of the service road for several reasons as follows: 1. Future cul-de-sac: The redevelopment of the entire triangular tract of land bordered by Highway 61, Larpenteur Avenue, and Parkway Drive is a strong possibility due to the varying land uses and disjointed nature of the current developments. In order to ensure access to future redeveloped lots in the triangular tract of land, city staff recommends planning for a future road which would extend from Larpenteur Avenue and dead-end with a cul-de-sac in the center of the triangular tract of land (Attachment 11). 3 With the approval of the vacation of the service road, the city should require that Mr. Blair dedicate a 3D-foot roadway easement on the west side of the property. This easement would give the city one-half of the needed easement for a road, with the other 30 feet coming from the property to the west when that redevelops and remaining portions of the road coming from properties to the north. The city should also require that Mr. Blair relocate the proposed rainwater garden proposed for the west side of the property to ensure it is not located within the easement. 2. Impervious surface: The vacated service road would add 6,762 square feet to the existing property, for an overall square footage of 36,775. The additional land will help reduce the percentage of impervious surface on the property. 3. Access for properties located to the north: Two properties to the north currently utilize the service road (Bacchus Homes and a residential property). City staff recommends that only the portion of the service road located in front of Mr. Blair's property be vacated and removed with the development at this time. The remaining portion of the service road to the north would remain and be used by those properties until such time as they redeveloped. 4. Driveway: City staff supported the vacation of the service road to reduce the number and location of driveways onto Larpenteur Avenue. City staff has suggested several alternatives to accomplish this including shifting the building, using one driveway for both the parking lot and loading dock, or allowing for a temporary driveway to the north (onto the remaining portion of the service road) until the future cul-de-sac road is constructed. As stated above, Mr. Blair states that could not develop the property with a loading dock and parking lot without two driveways. Building Setback Variance The building and parking lot setbacks within a BC zoning district are as follows: 1. Building: a. Front: 30 feet b. Side and rear (toward commercial): No required setback c. Side and rear (toward residential): 50 feet 2. Parking: a. Front: 15 feet b. Side and rear (toward commercial): 5 feet c. Side and rear (toward residential): 20 feet City code requires increased setbacks from commercial properties when they are adjacent properties that are used for residential purposes. The properties to the north and northwest are zoned BC. However, only the property to the north is a commercial use (Bacchus Homes), the property to the northwest is "used for residential purposes." The property to the west is zoned R-1 and used as a residential purpose. Therefore, the 4 required building setbacks from the northwest (at the angled lot line) and the west are 50 feet. The proposed development meets all required setbacks except the 50-foot building setback to the residential property to the northwest. The building is proposed with a 7.5 foot setback at the northwest corner to the northwest property line. Mr. Blair's rationale for this decreased setback is twofold - first the building needs to be located as far to the west as possible in order to ensure the driveways maintain an increased setback from the intersection and the residential structure to the northwest is located 160 feet away from the proposed commercial building. In addition, Mr. Blair submitted his estimate of hardship for the variance (Attachment 1, page 2). Shoreland District The property is located within the Phalen Lake Shoreland Overlay District (properties within 1,000 feet of the lake). City code allows a maximum impervious surface coverage of 40 percent, which could be increased to 50 percent if the applicant qualifies for impervious surface bonuses. To qualify for these bonuses the applicant must provide and maintain significant man-made facilities for reducing stormwater flow or treatment of runoff for non-poi nt-source water pollutants. Mr. Blair's development proposal has 27.46 percent impervious surface coverage. Mr. Blair was able to reduce the amount of impervious surface from the March 2006 concept development proposal by using pourous pavement for his parking lot. This type of pavement allows the water to soak through the pavement for cleansing prior to being released from the site. This type of pavement is more expensive than regular non pervious pavement. Mr. Blair has submitted an application for the Ramsey Washington Metro Watershed District's pervious surface grant which could fund up to $30,000 of the porous pavement. With the use of porous pavement, Mr. Krumm has stated that the size of the proposed rainwater garden on the west side of the building could probably be reduced. This will be determined upon submittal of revised grading and drainage plans as outlined in the engineering review (Attachment 11). In addition, as stated above, the rainwater garden must be relocated to ensure it is not located within the 30-foot-wide right-of-way easement. Parking City code requires one parking space per 200 square feet of retail use and one parking space per 1,000 square feet of warehouse and storage use. Based on these standards, Mr. Blair's development requires 24 parking spaces. Mr. Blair proposes 24 parking spaces for his development. Design Review Mr. Blair is proposing to construct the building with steel horizontal siding, stucco wall finishes, stone wainscot, and a metal roof. This is a vast improvement over previous proposals which included exteriors of flat concrete block and accent striping of rock face block on the 2000 proposal and steel vertical siding, brick wainscot, and a metal roof on the 2005 proposal. The CDRB reviewed the earlier building design during a concept 5 plan review on March 28. 2006, and had concerns about this style of building located on this very visible property. The design of the building will be discussed by the CDRB during their review of the project on July 25, 2006. In addition to building design, the CDRB will review the site layout, screeningllandscaping, and lighting. Other Comments Butch Gervais, Maplewood Fire Marshal: The project requires the following: a 20 foot emergency access road at all times; fire protection system per codes and monitored; fire alarm system per code and monitored; fire department lock box required (paperwork from Fire Marshal). Lieutenant Kevin Rabbett, Maplewood Police Department: I have no significant public safety concerns. I am somewhat concerned that the rear of the building with its service door will be quite isolated from public view. I would recommend, at a minimum, that the door be covered with a motion sensor lighting system. Also, the meal siding will be much easier to penetrate for burglars than a masonry wall. David Fisher, Interim Community Development Director/Building Official, Maplewood Building Department: The city will require a complete building code analysis when the construction plans are submitted for the building permit; the north wall may require a fire rated assembly of one-hour; all exiting must go to a public way; provide adequate fire department access to the buildings; plans submitted must be signed by Minnesota design professionals; the building is required to be fire sprinklered; I would recommend a preconstruction meeting with the contractor, the project manager and the city building inspection department. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Adopt the rezoning resolution attached (Attachment 15). This resolution changes the city's zoning map from single-dwelling residential (R-1) to business commercial (BC) for Lot 5, Block 1, Van Houten's Plat (PIN 172922440019). This change is based on the following: a. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. b. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. c. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. d. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of pUblic services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 6 e. The proposed change is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. f. The proposed change will allow the applicant to combine this property to the adjacent property (currently zoned BC) for the development of a retail/warehouse carpet store. 2. Adopt the public vacation resolution attached (Attachment 16). This resolution authorizes the vacation of a public right-of-way to include a portion of the Highway 61 frontage road located on the east side of 1684 Arcade Street as follows: Starting from the Larpenteur Avenue right-of-way, 161 feet north and 42 feet east toward Highway 61. Vacation of the right-of-way is approved with the following conditions: a. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must: 1) Submit a 30-foot-wide right-of-way easement for approval by city staff. 2) Record the approved right-of-way easement with Ramsey County. 3) Submit a revised grading and drainage plan and landscape plan showing the relocation of the proposed rainwater garden on the west side of the property to ensure it is not located within the 30- foot-wide right-of-way easement. 3. Adopt the building setback variance resolution attached (Attachment 17). This resolution authorizes a 42.5 foot building setback from a commercial building to a residential lot line for a retail/warehouse carpet store (Carpet Court) to be located at 1684 Arcade Street. This variance is based on the following: a. Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. This is because the north lot line is not straight and has a slight angle where the property meets the adjacent northwest residential lot line. The variance is needed only for the northwest corner of the building. The remaining portion of the building maintains the required 50-foot setback. b. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance as follows: c. The affected property is actually zoned and guided business commercial in the city's zoning map and comprehensive plan. The property was used as a business in the past, but has been converted back to only residential within the last ten years. d. The applicant will be required to screen the northwest and west side of the building from the adjacent residential properties. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: 7 a. The applicant submitting a screening and landscape plan which ensures an 80 percent opaque screen from the building to the northwest and west residential lot lines. This plan to be approved by the community design review board. 8 CITIZEN COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 20 properties within 500 feet of this site. Following are the four comments received: 1. Tom Barrett, Property Director, Lutheran Social Services, 785 Larpenteur Avenue (group home adjacent the Carpet Court site on the west side): Mr. Barrett submitted a letter of opposition for the Carpet Court proposal to the city (Attachment 13). In summary, Mr. Barrett has concerns regarding the rezoning of the property from residential to commercial and the impacts a commercial building will have on their property. 2. Adolph and Mildred Palme, 1684 Arcade Street (single-family home located two lots to the north of the Carpet Court site): Mr. and Mrs. Palme submitted a letter of opposition for the Carpet Court proposal to the city (Attachment 14). In summary, they have concerns with increased traffic, maintenance of proposed site when existing site has not been maintained. 3. Jerome Lucker, 1706 Parkway Drive (single-family house adjacent the Carpet Court site on the northwest side): Mr. Lucker contacted staff via telephone and indicated that he had his property surveyed in 2004. He wants to be assured that the applicant knows where their shared property line is prior to development. In addition, Mr. Lucker is supportive of the Pal me's concerns about the development. 4. Randy Bacchus, Bacchus Homes, 1701 Arcade Street (office building adjacent the Carpet Court site on the north side): Mr. Bacchus expressed real concerns over the October 2005 proposed development by Mr. Blair. During a recent telephone conversation with Mr. Bacchus by staff, however, he now states that he appreciates the improvements that Mr. Blair has made in this new proposal, but has some concerns about the design of the building and the possibility of underground contamination from the old gas tanks. Mr. Bacchus has no concerns with the vacation of the service road and how it will affect his business. 9 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Site Size (including vacated service road): Existing Land Use: 36,775 square feet (.84 Acres) Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES Northwest: (BC)) West: Single Family Home (planned and zoned business commercial South: Street East: Single Family Home (group home) (planned BC and zoned single dwelling residential (R-1)) Larpenteur Avenue and Gustavus Adolphus Church Across the North: Arcade Street (Highway 61) and Phalen Park Across the Street (planned open space and zoned farm residence) Bacchus Homes (planned and zoned BC) PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan: Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: BC 2/3rds BC and 1/3'd R-1 AIIBC CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL Rezoning Section 44-1165 of the zoning code requires that the city council make the following findings to rezone property: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the Zoning Code; 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded; 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare; 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. Public Right-of-Way Vacation There are not formal criteria for approval of a public right-of-way vacation. However, the vacation of the road should be in the best interest of the public at large. 10 Variances State law requires that the city council make the following findings to approve a variance from the zoning code: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. "Undue hardship" as used in granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Application Date State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for a proposal. Mr. Blair submitted his original proposal on September 9, 2005. During review of the project the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) indicated that they would like to study the possibility of vacating the highway frontage road which runs between Mr. Blair's property and Highway 61. To ensure the city and MNDOT have adequate time in which to study the impacts of the frontage road Mr. Blair waived his 60-day rights. Therefore, there is no required timeline for city review and action. P:sec17\Carpet Court\7-18-06 pc memorandum Attachments: 1. Development Description/Estimate of Variance Hardship 2. Location Map 3. Land Use Map 4. Zoning Map 5. Site Plan 6. Grading Plan 7. Landscape Plan 8. Building Elevation 9. 2000 Development Proposal 10. 2005 Development Proposal 11. Future Cul-De-Sac 12. Engineering Review 13. Lutheran Social Service Correspondence 14. Adolph and Mildred Palme Correspondence 15. Rezoning Resolution 16. Vacation Resolution 17. Building Setback Variance Resolution 11 Attachment 1 Mr. Gary Blair Carpet Court 1121 Minnehahah Ave E St. Paul, MN 55106 (651) 774-3321 March 13,2006 Ms. Shann Finwall, Planner City of Maplewood 1830 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN 55109 Re: Property Located on the Northwest Corner of Arcade Street and Larpenteur Avenue. (1685 Arcade Street & adjacent lot) Dear Ms. Finwall: This letter is for the proposed building (7,848 sf I lot size 36,775 sf) to house my retaillwarehouse carpet store called Carpet Court. The building proposed for this property will vastly improve the property of which I have made application. The property currently is a vacant lot adjoining 2 commercially rated lots. The property to the North is operated with commercial rating by Bacchus Homes. To the South Gustavus Adolphus Lutheran church and its adjoining parking lot. Our building will be an asset to the neighborhood both by the clean lines created in the building itself, and the landscaping (including new trees) surrounding the property, and parking facilities. The building will have siding I stucco and stone facing, the metal roof will be the same as your building (1830 County Road BEast) At the rear of the building we plan to have a water garden to improve the water quality which will help treat the water prior to runoff. This should also qualify us for the needed impervious surface requirements. Our business is a family owned business who has been operating in the middle of a residential neighborhood in St. Paul for over 33 years with no traffic congestion problems. The new location already has some of its residents using there property for commercial use, further use should not be a traffic problem. If you need to contact me for additional information: my work number is (651) 774-3321 and my home number is (651) 774-7021. Feel free to call me with your concerns. Thank you for your consideration of the project being submitted to your department. /1 ~incere)Y; /J ' d!clV/ I~ y. ~/Blair Development Description Carpet Court 1121 E. Minnehaha Avenue, SL Paul, MN 55106 (651) 774-3321 Carpet Court is currently proposing a retail/warehouse building in the city of Maplewood. The building will be constructed on 2 vacant lots located on the northwest comer of Larpenteur A venue and Arcade Street (Hwy 61). This proposed development requires a setback variance for the west lot to the adjacent northwest property line. A strict setback variance would cause a undue hardship for several reasons: (I) Figuring a strict setback requirements would make 95% of the west lot unusable. (2) The setback problem is due to the unusual shaped property. (3) Our engineers have tried several different site designs and are unable to design a building that would not be restricted by a residential setback requirement for this angled property line. (4) The adjacent northwest property, that requires the setback variance for us is zoned as a Business Commercial (Be). This building was used as a commercial building and maybe used for a business in the future. Our current site plan meets the setback requirements for Business Commercial (Be) of which this adjacent property is zoned. The variance would keep with the spirit and intent of the ordinance for several reasons: (I) The properties located North, East, and Northwest are all zoned as a Business Commercial (Be). Only one adjoining property is zoned as Residential (R I) located to the West and we would have a separation of 60' between the building and the property line. (2) The city staff has recommended a future cul-de-sac to be located near the northwest property line for the future redevelopment of the triangular tract of land. When this occurs, the residential set back would no longer be in effect and thus the variance keeps with the intent of the ordinance. (3) Maplewood's Comprehensive Land Use Plan has scheduled that this complete triangular tract of land will all be zoned as Business Commercial (BC) in the future and thus a variance would not alter the essential character of the area. The setback codes and the comprehensive land use plan were designed to minimize the conflicts between different land uses. We are intending to use the land as Maplewood's plan guided us and a variance would be keeping in the spirit of the ordinance and Maplewood's future plan. Thank you, ..., " ii " 1- I" " ~'1 ~/ ~ ",' ) ii' f" Mapleyvopd ________ ---1-_ L- ,- -- St. Paul N W+E s ~--: , LJ 0000 ~O, j, --ni' I f-l, CJ,.'" I [] ! f~ 68Sl Arcade ;1 .' Stl!l~U Jo '11"'i.i I, II,I~' , II I,'l ,1,1,10 " ;: Q) a. III :2 ..... CD >. III ;: ~ .!2l I ~ - Q) Q) '- ,i U51 Q), all e <( I ~I',I I, . '.I I~,=___ ! - Service Road I ! I I Attachment 2 Phalen Park I' I __J, II I Location Map Attachrnent 3 St. Paul ______ II '; I' I -JlliJ - "I'L.. / jii 0 "0 o o ;:, Q) I ~I :2: I , I ......1 co >- ~ ..c I ' .2> " J: 'I Iii .... I I U5 'III~ ", II ~ 1< - ,I c~ Larpenteur Avenue Ii! ;.i,/i I' " 1 11695 Arcad~ Street I ~_J R-1 Single Dwelling Residential . R-3 High Multiple Dwelling Residential . Be Business Cornmercial BCM Business Cornrnercial Modified . Open Space N W+E s Land Use Map Attachment 4 / -I' i .~ --; II 1-; I " --"'- ....: o '0 o I O! ~I (I), 'i5., III I ~I , ...... CD >. III ~ .r::.l. OJ . II ~, I II 111 .1 -=, 'I~I III~I 114:1 St. Paul 1685 Arcade _ _ ~t[e~i .. - -. Larpenteur Avenue II ~/;;;~ BCM Business Commercial Modified . BC Business Commercial . R-3 High Multiple Dwelling Residential . PUD Planned Unit Development . Farm Residence 11 R-1 Single Dwelling Residential N W+E s Zoning Map Attachment 5 (ommen.lq \ ;... i- r I I L unm "I~ !' 0 . III11 m[ IJII ~ " '----1 I I I I I I UI .~D. IJII UII ... '. (1, . ~ LM~R, AtNV& (\:Iy,G\,\ '?~\ --- ..J ., '" ~ ~ , oJ t t ::s :r- '" 3 r 1) = -0 .:> - " . 1 ". I - '.., ~ '.. ".. " ~ c '" -0 .n ~ ',. -~ ~~i.:lti~ SfNi(.( ~C)qd "to ~e "a.~~ N ~J~ -=-; ~~ E w Site Plan s ..~.:....:::.::::...::..:::::..:::::.:::::~.H......:::l.:........................:;:...........................,..~::-i:..:::::.:::::.:.....:..:..::::..::..:.1- fol-------- __~- ... ,~ . .------- ~ l;- t !i Ii !!! m!! I , ~!:!= : ~ "1 ~ N w ~J~ ~~~ E s ~ , t " ~' i i ~ , ~ i ~: i . t :!!? i ;~ ! ~ ~ u r=;;:;;::j, t ! J' . , It '.~ t i J . I ., l I' , Attachrnenl 6 _!~1I I 'I. il~ i~ I" .. r. 'I i~1 'I,ij I .j. I J .j" -.-'-., i i i I i i i i i i i i i i i i i ~ , ! \ 1 -t- ---=4;"" .. i t -~ .~ ! J , , ---.o-~ I :: , . I i i i i i ! i ~ i 1 i ..... ................ i ~ i ; ~ I h .. ---'--..~ . --~~--~---------------_____J i_~~ ~--I' ! ~, ...;:::::==~ . \ I j ~ Grading Plan Attachment 7 \ ~ :~ , l I I * ,~~ : 'I-'.l----'LJ .. i \ ", ...~: 1>- -r------------in--------n--n----------------------------. ~or-yi ! , ,,!@') ! loon_ (~ ~1I1S ................u..................\..__ _;.~~~:::-:~:~____n__..___nn___._________....._.....____________________________d~......._h__h...._.;.__..____._._________......__.._._: _u__ __ _ .... ' _____ : i I : ~ i I I !:!l ~-----------------~------------------------------------------------~ C(:INNmfTOEXII_ca "'....,.'..."0.0 '. . - -- -----1 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i I i i i i i il 'i Ii !i I- i! II 'i I. " I. " II II i i i .......__nnnh.................nn.___n__....................__.........._____........._u......._....._____..................... .......,- ~ ... I !:!:!~ 51 I ,1 I FA if ' ! n~~1 _Ji III 1~1 '11~1 'Iil '11 j II ~ I ~'I) I .. i , ~ n i'l . ! . -~ Maple (Verity T8D) 2 1/2 Wigelia 2' - 4' Space: 5' Rhocloc:lendrum 3 . 5' Space: 12' Geranium 15 -18" '-,- Ca1amagrostis Canadensis 36- 7 Ue"'81ocallis (Happy Retums) 18" CatthII Palusiril4-16" N w ~J~ ~~~ E Landscape Plan s Attachment 8 ------- .-.:z.;<[-~~~ilD..D.O 0 _:;.:;.;;.~'-,c-::~..-- ....':::.:'~~_-,..., -~.,~~:' . Building Elevation -- .- -- ......- - I Attachment 9 -- '" .,.". I . . ... -- .~ PROPOSED CARPET COURT I , , I ~ , I ~ . I "' ! I I I ~;~ --. I! Is a - 1% .. -- N W.E S @}. I el i I I II ~.... w__ ___._~____ .. ... I -- - lARPENTEUR AVENUE I C <C o c:: .W ~ I- Z o c:: u.. 2000 Development Proposal \ I I i j / ,/ "I" i ,I ! \. / . \ ;:;v~.:.,/. " : I ;--~j / '\" ,,---....... 'r!r... : II I >~' 'Iii, ,/ 'f' I / U" , "/ """","",SUW)!l' II!I A~,;'. 1.1: ! 'fe/'='" lUll,' :'_.. /.,,'j il ~.~.- " ._- If' . ! ~ i """1.1 "~l~ a.r__ -'~'-'-1 LARPEtifEuR' N w+, s .~ ....,a.. ,no -....- AVENUE . n ....'a. _'711 Attachment 10 ;0 o i z ~.1 >- - ~ G :i: l'! -< ~ V> 2005 Development Proposal --- -- = Larpenteur Avenue St. Paul N W+E Attachment 11 '""' ...: o '8 ~ ~ Phalen Park III ~ ~ <0 o~ >- ~ .s::: Cl I ~ G:i ~ - en Ql "0 ~ Future Cul-De-Sac s Attachment 12 Enl!:ineerinl!: Plan Review PROJECT: PROJECT NO: REVIEWED BY: Carpet Court 05-28 Steve Kummer, Civil Engineer 11- General Site Review Jon Jarosch, Civil Engineer I - Erosion Control Erin Laberee, Assistant City Engineer July 10,2006 DATE: General Site Plan Comments I. The developer is proposing 2 driveways off of Larpenteur Avenue. Staff met with Mn/Dot last spring to discuss the location of the proposed driveways. Mn/Dot prefers that any the new entrance is located 160 feet from the Highway 61 entrance. The easterly most entrance does not meet this requirement. The developer shall consider reconfiguring the parking lot layout to eliminate the easterly most entrance. 2. The ponding area shown along the west side of the site shall be relocated outside of the new right of way easement. The new right of way will accommodate a future public roadway to serve future development to the north and west. 3. An existing topographic and boundary survey should be included with this plan package. This plan shall include, but not be limited to, existing curb edges, road grades, tree locations, catch basins, flared-end sections, utility poles, etc. Property corners, property lines, dimensions and bearings shall also be shown on all plan sheets. 4. Show existing and proposed concrete curb and gutter on all plans. Concrete curb and gutter shall be shown around the eastern parking lot and west driveway entrance. 5. The use of porous pavement is a highly positive aspect ofthis design. A pavement detail has been provided in this plan set. 6. It appears that with the site layout that larger trucks would have to pull up and back into the 12xl4 overhead door directly from Larpenteur Avenue. It is suggested that a different site and building layout is contemplated such that there is one entry from Larpenteur Avenue and that trucks can back into the loading areas from the parking lot versus directly from Larpenteur Avenue. 7. Plans must be signed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota. 8. The developer shall enter into a Developer's Agreement with the City for the dedication of the new right-of-way on the west side of the site. Site Demolition 1. The site appears to be a former location of a gas station. Have the existing underground storage tanks been removed? 2. A demolition plan and demolition plan notes should be provided for the proposed removal of existing pavement and other items related to the former gas station. Demolition items should include tree removals. Erosion Control I. The detail of the Rock Construction Entrance shall conform to Maplewood Standard Plate 350 which shows a minimum length of 75 feet, and a MnlDOT Type V geotextile fabric beneath and 2 feet beyond the pad. Rock construction entrance pad locations shall be shown on plans. 2. Silt fence installation detail shall conform to Maplewood Standard Plate 350. Show height dimensions and other pertinent dimensions in compliance with the standard plate. 3. Install Heavy-Duty Silt Fence along the northwest comer of the lot in place of the silt fence currently shown on the plans between the points where the 178'-0" contour exits the property. Provide detail for Heavy-Duty Silt Fence on plans. 4. There are four existing stormwater inlets adjacent to the site that must be protected prior to construction. These include the one existing catch-basin shown on the plans, as well as the catch basin directly south of that catch basin, a flared-end on the east-end of the property that is not shown on the plans, and a catch basin directly east of this flared- end. Catch-basin inlet protection shall consist of a Wimco catch-basin insert, a Dandy Silt-Sac, or an engineering department approved equivalent. The simple placement of geotextile fabric over the grate is not an acceptable alternative. The flared-end section shall be protected with a ring of heavy-duty silt fence. Grading and Drainage Patterns I. Provide a building finished-floor elevation (FFE) on the plan and elevation views. Based on the proposed elevation of the parking area to the east of the building, one may assume an FFE of 182'-6" or 183'-0", for example, but this needs to be stated on both the plan and elevation views. 2. Based on the building elevation views, it appears that the building is to be a single- elevation slab-on-grade construction. Assuming an FFE of 182'-6" or 183'-0", there appears to be a 5-foot grade differential between the northwest part of the building and adjoining property. Either show no more than a 3H:IV proposed slope to the north property line or provide a retaining wall to mitigate this grade differential. 2 3. Show elevations on your elevation views. Include existing and proposed exterior grade profiles on all elevation views. 4. Revisit the grading and drainage near the southwest corner of the building. If one is to assume a building FFE of 182'-6" or 183'-0", then the grade along the southwest corner of the building may be somewhat flat and drainage may not flow away from the building. 5. Show grading and drainage patterns on the proposed western driveway into the building. Drainage from the western driveway should be directed into the proposed ponding area and not into the street. 6. More grading information is needed at the driveway entries onto Larpenteur Avenue. Existing Larpenteur A venue grades as well as proposed match-in elevations at the street should be shown. 7. It appears that the proposed grade for the porous pavement parking lot is going to be predominately flat. This may become an issue during winter months. It is suggested that the parking lot be graded to drain toward low points so patches of ice have a place to drain during thaw periods. Show how the parking lot grades will tie into the existing grades along the north and east sides of the property. 8. Based on the elevation views, it appears that the two overhead door entries are to be drive-in docks and not the traditional4-foot deep loading dock entries. A ramp or elevating device may be required to transfer items from the building floor to a truck. Is a drive-in dock desirable considering that a 4-foot loading dock provides a more level transfer surface from a truck to the building floor? 9. Show positive drainage away from the east side of the building toward the proposed parking lot. Show that the proposed sidewalk cross-slope does not exceed 2%. 10. Show a ramp for the handicapped leading from the parking lot. Show details on the proposed handicapped ramp. Standard detail plates for reference are available at http://www.ci.maplewood.mn.us. Utilities 1. Include a separate utility plan in this package. 2. The water and sanitary sewer connections are not shown. Show existing as-built information on proposed plan including existing water and sanitary sewer connections stubbed to the site. Show existing and proposed pipe sizes, materials and slopes. 3. Storm sewer is schematically shown on the plans with no inverts, pipe sizes, or materials used. Manholes and outlets are shown schematically, but types and sizes are not specified. Provide storm sewer information on plan sheet. 3 4. Show the intent with the proposed storm sewer going into the east parking lot. For example, will the stub connect to a draintile system or to a special manhole structure which drains the water from the stone base of the parking lot? If so, the layout of a proposed draintile system, or a detail showing this special structure is needed with the plan. 5. Although the porous parking area will be the primary drainage way for the eastern portion of the site, a secondary system for the parking lot surface should be in place. For example, this could be a low-point catch basin in the parking area or the parking area could be tipped east toward a rain water garden or swale along the east side of the parking lot. 6. Show relevant utility details, such as manholes, pipe bedding, water and sewer connections, etc. All standard detail plates are available in PDF form at http://www.ci.maplewood.mn.us. 7. An existing flared-end section and catch basin at the east end of the site are not shown on the drawings. These are to be shown on a utility plan and property addressed. Storm Water Management I. A storm water BMP maintenance agreement will be required for the porous pavement parking lot and the proposed infiltration/ponding area. The City will be responsible for preparing the agreement. 2. Provide a sump manhole upstream ofthe discharge point into the infiltration pond. 3. Show HydroCAD computations for existing runofffrom site. 4. The l-yearI24-hour rainfall event for the City of Maplewood is 2.4 inches. Revise accordingly. 5. The water quality treatment (WQT) volume for the infiltration basin is based on I inch of runoff from the proposed impervious surfaces of the site (including the porous pavement). The WQT volume ofthe basin is the infiltration or "dead" storage volume below the secondary basin outlet. Revisit the basin design, as it appears from the enclosed computations that the pond may be oversized. 6. The summary computations and the high-water elevations (HWL's) of the storm water computations do not appear to be consistent with the subsequent HydroCAD summaries enclosed. For example the HWL for the lOa-year rainfall event is shown to be 179.84 while the HydroCAD summary sheet for the lOa-year rainfall shows a 177 .90. The runoff summary totals should also be consistent with the summaries as well. Revise computations as necessary. 4 7. It appears that the infiltration pond and the porous pavement parking lot on the summary sheet are indicated as one pond, but on the subsequent summary sheets, they are shown as two ponds. The two areas should be indicated as separate ponding areas. The porous pavement parking lot "pond" should be routed to the infiltration basin. Revise the storm water computations as necessary. Geometries and Lavout I. Show the extents of the 86 curb section in plan view with a double-line. 2. Show gravel base extending under curb and gutter. 3. Show parking lot curve and driveway entry radii and dimension as necessary. 4. Detail the pavement design for the entry into the 12xl4 overhead door. 5. What types of vehicles will be utilizing the 9x 1 0 overhead door? Backing for a larger truck may be an issue if a vehicle is parked in the northwestern end spot. 5 ; Lutheran Social Service of Minnesota 51,11c Center 2-1-t','iC"ltl(lA\l'IlUl' St. 1'<1LI1, ~1" S'i](l:-; h')],6-'12.,'ic)l)(1 j,S()(1:;:-;1.,:;2h(l 1;1\ ('::ij,'Jh'l:'110 \y\\'w.l~smIL,\rg ~ ~ Attachment 13 Lutheran Social Service for changing lives ~........... ;>'0" Octob"T ':! :66.) --- ' 2.".. ~ - Shann Finwall Planner City of Maplewood 1830 East County Rd B Maplewood, Mn. 55109 Dear Mr. Finwall, This letter is response to the recent Neighborhood Survey that was sent to me on behalf of Lutheran Social Service ofMN, LSS, regarding Conditional Use Permit for a structure located at 1685 Arcade St. Lutheran Social Service owns the adjacent property located at 785 Larpenteur East. This location is home to four developmentally disabled adults that LSS provides support and services to this population. We respectfully wish for this application not to proceed based on the following concerns and issues that most certainly will affect the lives these individuals have come to expect. In reviewing the information that was sent, I sense that the location for this structure should be located in a more business type atmosphere of commercial zoning. Residential abuts this location and this would have an adverse factor of a large percent to valuation of the existing dwelling. We cannot afford to lose equity of this home. Traffic patterns as well are much of a concern due to the large tractor trailers that will be needed to make deliveries to this location. I am assuming that there would be significant "walk in" and drive traffic as well, that will be disruptive as well. The overall size of the structure will be obstructing to views and enjoyment of our clients. They surely enjoy the peace and quite serenity of their backyard and all it has to offer. As stated the use would be for wholesale carpet sales. We all have seen carpet companies as such come and go frequently. This site would not offer much hope as to a business that would have longevity due to its location. A CUP may not be in the best interst of all. What would become of the structure at that point? More surveys? More hearings? I would hope that sincere effective planning would take place as for proper locations to address this issue. LSS does not think this is a suitable location based on the above needed conditional use permit. Sincerely ~..), - - ') -' ~ Tom Barrett Property Director Lutheran Social Service ofMN. Attachment 14 Adolph and Mildred Palme 1721 Arcade St N Maplewood, MN 55109-4204 RE: Plans to develop 1685 Arcade Street IRIECIE:rViEaJl JUL 1 1 2DlJ6 July 9, 2006 Dear Neighbor, Gary Blair is the owner of the property at 1685 Arcade Street, and recently it has come to our attention that he plans to develop this property as a 7,848 square fool carpet retaiVwarehouse store called "Carpet Court." This is an issue of much concern to us. Not only would this project require major rezoning, it would also greatly increase traffic and require the building of a new service road. The most troubling aspect of this project is that we cannot see how someone who does not currently take care of his property can be expected to do a better job with a retaiVwarehouse store. We are Mr. Blair's neighbors and we rarely see him. He does not even keep up with basic yard work on his land, letting grass and weeds grow two feet high. There is also a lot of garbage that he just lets blow around his yard. Is this someone we can really trust with a major project that will have long-tenn effects on the value of our property, and the kind of community that we live in? We disagree with changing the zoning and the proposed construction of this building on the above mentioned property. As Mr. Blair's neighbors, this affects all of us. We should make sure we have a say in what happens in our community. We cannot just let someone who does not even take care of his current property rezone our area, put in new roads, and start a major building project. The Maplewood Planning Commission will hold a public hearing for this land use proposal on Tuesday, July 18, at 7 pm. Please make your concerns known by appearing at the hearing and stating your views, or by submitting written comments before the meeting. You can also contact the city planner to ask questions or express concerns about the proposal: Shann Finwall, Planner Telephone: (651) 249-2304 E-mail: shann.finwall@ci.maplewood.mn.us The public hearing will be held at: Office of Community Development City of Maple wood 1830 East County Road B Maplewood, MN 55109 Sincerely, Adolph and Mildred Palme CC: Office of Community Development Attachment 15 ZONING MAP CHANGE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Gary Blair of the Carpet Court has proposed the following change to the City of Maplewood's zoning map: single dwelling residential (R-1) to business commercial (BC). WHEREAS, this change applies to: Lot 5, Block 1, Van Houten's Plat (PIN 172922440019) WHEREAS, the history of this change is as follows: 1. On July 18, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a hearing notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners. The planning commission conducted the public hearing whereby all publiC present were given a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the rezoning. 2. On the city council discussed the rezoning. They considered reports and recommendations from the planning commission and city staff. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above- described change in the zoning map for the following reasons: 1. The proposed change is consistent with the spirit, purpose and intent of the zoning code. 2. The proposed change will not substantially injure or detract from the use of neighboring property or from the character of the neighborhood, and that the use of the property adjacent to the area included in the proposed change or plan is adequately safeguarded. 3. The proposed change will serve the best interests and conveniences of the community, where applicable, and the public welfare. 4. The proposed change would have no negative effect upon the logical, efficient, and economical extension of public services and facilities, such as public water, sewers, police and fire protection and schools. 5. The proposed change is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. 6. The proposed change will allow the applicant to combine this property to the adjacent property (currently zoned BC) for a commercial business. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on Attachment 16 STREET VACATION RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Gary Blair of Carpet Court applied for the vacation of the following-described right-of-way: A portion of the Highway 61 frontage road located on the east side of 1684 Arcade Street as follows: Starting from the Larpenteur Avenue right-of-way, 161 feet north and 42 feet east toward Highway 61. WHEREAS, the history of this vacation is as follows: 1. On July 18, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing about this proposed vacation. The city staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent a notice to the abutting property owners. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the vacation. 2. On the city council reviewed this proposal. The city council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. WHEREAS, after the city approves this vacation, public interest in the property will go to the following abutting property: 1684 Arcade Street (Legal Description: Lots 3 and 4, Block 1, Van Houten's Plat, Subject to STH 61 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described right-of-way vacation for the following reasons: 1. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has authorized turning back the service road to the City of Maplewood. 2. The two remaining properties that gain access to their properties via the service road will still be able to utilize the road. 3. It is in the public interest. 4. The city has a concept plan for a future cul-de-sac road to be located to the west of the service road to allow for future redevelopment of the land. 5. It will allow the applicant to construct a business on the property. The vacation of the above-described right-of-way is based on the following condition: 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the Carpet Court development at 1685 Arcade Street, the applicant must a. Submit a 30-foot-wide right-of-way easement for approval by city staff. b. Record the approved right-of-way easement with Ramsey County. c. Submit a revised grading and drainage plan and landscape plan showing the relocation of the proposed rainwater garden on the west side of the property to ensure it is not located within the 30-foot-wide right-of-way easement. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2006. -2- Attachment 17 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Gary Blair of Carpet Court applied for a variance from the zoning ordinance in order to construct a retail/warehouse carpet store closer to a residential lot line than allowed by code. WHEREAS, this variance applies to the property at 1685 Arcade Street and the adjacent property to the west. The property identification numbers are 17-29-22-44-0019 and 17-29-22- 44-0018. The legal descriptions are: Lots 3, 4, and 5, Block 1, Van Houten's Plat, Subject to STH 61. WHEREAS, Section 44-20(c)(6)(b) of the Maplewood Zoning Code requires a 50 foot setback from a commercial building to a residential lot line. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a 7.5-foot setback to the residential lot line located to the northwest of the proposed building. WHEREAS, this requires a 42.5-foot building setback variance. WHEREAS, the history of this variance is as follows: 1. On July 18, 2006, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission council gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The planning commission also considered reports and recommendations from the city staff. The planning commission recommended approval of the variance. 2. On the city council reviewed this proposal. The city council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described variance for the following reasons: 1. Strict enforcement of the code would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property and not created by the property owner. This is because the north lot line is not straight and has a slight angle where the property meets the adjacent northwest residential lot line. The variance is needed only for the northwest corner of the building. The remaining portion of the building maintains the required 50-foot setback. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance as follows: a. The affected property is actually zoned and guided business commercial in the city's zoning map and comprehensive plan. The property was used as a business in the past, but has been converted back to only residential within the last ten years. b. The applicant will be required to screen the northwest and west side of the building from the adjacent residential properties. Approval is subject to the applicant doing the following: 1. The applicant submitting a screening and landscape plan which ensures an 80 percent opaque screen from the building to the northwest and west residential lot lines. This plan to be approved by the community design review board. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on -2-